Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I call Lynne Jones.

Lynne Jones: Now we know that Bush is lying to the American people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Why does the hon. Lady not say "Question 1"?

Lynne Jones: I will ask my question, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must reply. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she should call Question 1.

Lynne Jones: I do believe that this House should be suspended—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Valerie Davey.

Postal Services Commission

Valerie Davey: Whether the appointment of the chairman of the Postal Services Commission will be renewed; and if she will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: The term of the current chairman of Postcomm, Graham Corbett, formally ends on 31 March. I am glad to be able to tell the House that he has agreed to an extension of his term of up to a year, to complete the current phase of Postcomm's work and allow time for the appointment of his successor. Having consulted Mr. Corbett on the future composition of Postcomm, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to begin the process now to recruit a new chairman. She has also agreed to reappoint Janet Lewis-Jones for a further three-year term.

Valerie Davey: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am concerned to know how his Department will ensure that the successor, the new chair and, indeed, members of the commission will be appointed with some relevant experience of the postal service. How can he ensure that?

Stephen Timms: The current commissioners have been successful in establishing Postcomm as a postal regulator with a strong, independent voice. That was no mean feat and I congratulate them on it. There is a case for the commission reflecting direct experience of postal markets. We have agreed with Graham Corbett on a balance of continuity and change as the work of Postcomm goes forward. We will seek to appoint a new commissioner with specific experience of postal markets to reflect my hon. Friend's point. We also need to reflect on the overall balance of Postcomm in considering candidates for the new chair.

Nick Hawkins: Will the chairman of the Postal Services Commission look specifically at the Government's broken promises and ensure that elderly people can continue to collect benefits in the way that they have always wished to—from post offices? Postmasters and customers in my constituency are complaining bitterly that the Government have not kept their promise and that they are under huge pressure and influence to open new bank accounts. The Government made clear promises, but they have broken them. Will the new chairman look into that?

Stephen Timms: Those promises have been maintained and will be maintained as the new arrangements roll out from next month. In particular, it will be possible for anybody who so wishes to continue to receive their benefit in cash weekly at the post office without charge either through a basic bank account, an ordinary current account, where the bank has a contract with the post office, or through a Post Office card account. That requirement, which was set out three years ago, is fundamental to the way in which the automated credit transfer change has been implemented.

Colin Burgon: I am slightly disappointed that Mr. Corbett has an extension to his position. He has not been the force that we needed, although I may be in a minority of one on that. [Hon. Members: "No."] Thank you. May we have an assurance that his successor will have ideas that are rooted in reality and not be obsessed by the market approach, down which Mr. Corbett seems to be leading the Post Office?

Stephen Timms: In my view Mr. Corbett has done a good job in establishing Postcomm with an independent voice. Nobody should be surprised that he has sometimes taken views at variance with those of the Royal Mail—that goes with this terrain. Maintenance of the universal service obligation is Postcomm's key aim. That will certainly be at the forefront of the aims of the new chairman, as it has been for Graham Corbett.

Animal Welfare

Linda Gilroy: What steps she is taking to prevent imports of products containing cat and dog fur.

Melanie Johnson: The Government are investigating the possibilities for the labelling of any products containing domestic cat or dog fur. This will give consumers the information they need about what they are buying and enable the Government better to determine levels of imports.

Linda Gilroy: I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of people such as Sarah O'Leary in Plymouth and of the Western Morning News. Does she share their revulsion at this vile trade, in which cats and dogs are beaten and clubbed to death for fur for toys and ornaments? Will she do everything she can to bring this awful trade to an end?

Melanie Johnson: I would like to commend the campaign of the Western Morning News and the work that my hon. Friend and others are doing. The Government are serious about addressing cruelty to animals in third countries that do not have the same high welfare standards as the United Kingdom. My noble friend the Minister for Trade and Investment will meet interested non-governmental organisations and the relevant industry associations in the next month or so, to discuss their views on labelling. She has undertaken to report back on progress before the summer recess.

Mark Field: I welcome the Minister's initiatives on cat and dog fur, but there are many long-established and legitimate mink furrier industries in the UK, many of which are in my constituency. What discussions are taking place with the Home Office to ensure that such people can go about their legitimate business?

Melanie Johnson: I am sure that the Home Office is undertaking its duties in respect of these matters, as it always should.

Rural Post Offices

Mark Simmonds: If she will make a statement on the provision of Government services by rural post offices.

Stephen Timms: Every community is entitled to good access to postal and Government services. We will continue to ensure good access through the post office network, in particular through the rural network.

Mark Simmonds: Does the Minister acknowledge that, with the imminent commencement of the universal bank and the withdrawal of 40 per cent. of rural post offices' business, many rural post offices will have to make staff redundant and, ultimately, close as the Government withdraw the lifeline that allows those post offices to continue in business? How will the Government replace that lost income stream? Is this not just another example of the Government's disdain for rural post offices and local small businesses?

Stephen Timms: Following the publication of the performance and innovation unit's report, we made a commitment to end avoidable closures of rural post offices. As a result, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of closures. The hon. Gentleman talks about withdrawing a lifeline, but it is quite the contrary. We have just announced £450 million to maintain the rural network up to 2006. We have invested £500 million to provide the platform for ACT from next month. That will allow post offices to provide modern services of the kind that people want, which will secure a successful future for the post office network. Over a long period, there has been a decline in the old-fashioned business of the Post Office. That is why we have had to make the changes that we have made, laying the foundations for the successful future of the whole network, including the part of the network that is in rural areas.

Harry Barnes: Would not rural post offices be assisted if the Post Office card account system was run on a decent and full basis? Why is it so difficult to obtain a Post Office card account, despite the issuing of new literature today? Why cannot an account simply be obtained from a post office by people who are known there, or why cannot people simply tick a box to get a Post Office card account, as they can if they want to get a bank account? That is what is wanted.

Stephen Timms: We are ensuring that those who wish to choose a Post Office card account can do so. However, it is important to take the opportunity of this change to address the problem of financial exclusion. Many people in rural and other areas are disadvantaged because they do not have a bank account. We want those people to have the opportunity to consider whether, given the change, they now want to open a bank account. That is the reasoning behind the helpline. However, if people decide that they would prefer to have a card account, they will get their card account.

Richard Page: Despite the gloss that the Minister puts on the situation, is it not a fact that—and this applies to urban as well as to rural post offices—post offices' income is dropping, the value of sub-post offices is dropping, the footfall is dropping, and the number of services to the elderly and vulnerable is dropping? Only 311 out of 3,000 sub-post offices that are facing compulsory closure know their fate. When will the Minister let those sub-post offices know whether they are going to have to close? He cannot keep them in limbo for ever.

Stephen Timms: It is true that custom at post offices has been declining. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supported did nothing; by contrast the Labour Government are addressing the problem and ensuring that there is a successful future for the Post Office. In 1996, 40 per cent. of benefit recipients received their benefit in cash at the post office, but today that proportion is down to just over a quarter, as a result of the choice that people have made. The Post Office has to reflect the changes in the wishes of its customers and provide services that meet their needs, so we have invested in technology for the post office network the very large sum that I mentioned. The Post Office will be able to use that as a platform to deliver modern services that people want.

George Stevenson: May I return my hon. Friend to the issue of the Post Office card account and ask that he hold further discussions with our ministerial colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions? Some of my constituents have received forms from the DWP regarding their benefits after the changes take place, which have no reference whatever to the Post Office card account as an option. That is seen, rightly, as discrimination against the account and the matter ought to be put right.

Stephen Timms: If my hon. Friend looks at the leaflet that accompanies the form to which he refers, he will see that the position is clearly spelt out. However, the point that he made has been drawn to our attention and a change will be made to ensure that there is a reference to the Post Office card account on the form.

Tim Yeo: Is not the truth that thousands of vulnerable people who have hitherto relied on receiving benefits in cash at post offices will find it harder to do so? Post offices will lose thousands of customers because the Government have made it almost impossible for them to open a Post Office card account. The Government's disastrous double whammy is more post office closures and more problems for pensioners, young mums, disabled people and other vulnerable people in the community.

Stephen Timms: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. He should not mislead and worry people, especially the elderly, who will be concerned about what he said. People who want to continue receiving their benefit in cash from their local post office will be able to do so through one of the means that I mentioned. We built that requirement into the process from the start and it will be delivered when the arrangements are put in place next month. Given our investment in technology and the fact that post office services will use modern technology in the future, as opposed to the old-fashioned systems left behind by the previous Government, there will be a much better future for the Post Office and the services that it provides for the benefit, especially, of elderly and vulnerable people in every part of the country.

Carbon Fuels

Brian Iddon: What action she is taking to lessen use of carbon fuels.

Patricia Hewitt: On 24 February, we published a White Paper that puts climate change at the heart of our energy policy. We have accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 and to be on a path to that by 2020. The White Paper sets out the measures needed to achieve that target.

Brian Iddon: Tragic events in the middle east have, once again, highlighted the fact that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, such as oil, and even gas, as our major energy sources. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to invest significantly more in renewable energy sources, such as wind and tidal power, in order to secure energy resources for future generations, in addition to meeting our Kyoto commitments?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do far more, not only on renewables but also on energy efficiency. We have set out in the White Paper exactly how we shall do that. In particular, we are investing a third of a billion pounds over four years in capital grants for new renewable projects, including wave and tidal power. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has the first—indeed, the only—commercial wave power station in the world. With that, and with the expertise that we have in wind power and offshore technologies, we will be able not only to achieve our CO2 targets, but to create a new renewables manufacturing industry that will deliver new jobs and new exports for Britain.

Michael Fabricant: Given the fall in farm incomes by more than two thirds over the past six years, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in DEFRA about the possibility of producing fuel through alcohol? Is she aware that in Brazil more than two thirds of the fuel that is used is alcohol fuel, which is generated from crops? Why cannot we do that here in the United Kingdom?

Patricia Hewitt: There is no reason at all why we should not do that. Indeed, the White Paper to which I referred was a joint production by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, me, and the Secretary of State for Transport. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing substantially in helping farmers and other members of the rural community to diversify. There are clearly huge potential benefits to the farming community, as well as to the whole country, in helping to increase the production of fuel from biomass and bioethanol. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is assisting in that through differential fuel duties.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although the ambitious measures in the White Paper in respect of renewables and energy efficiency are extremely welcome, they are not matched by the ambitious scale of investment that is needed? Does not energy efficiency provide the quickest and easiest way to cut carbon emissions, and will she assure the House that there will be increasing support for energy efficiency measures in the next few years?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We say in the White Paper that energy efficiency is by far the cheapest and simplest way of meeting all our policy goals in this area. If I may say so, however, he somewhat underestimates the scale of the investment that is being made. I have already referred to the third of a billion pounds over four years, and we shall have to see what we achieve in future spending reviews. By 2010, the renewables obligation, which is central to the policy, will deliver support to the renewables industry that is worth some £1 billion a year. On top of that, by 2005–06 we will have put in place a new carbon emissions trading scheme, which will create further strong incentives for much greater energy efficiency and more investment in renewables.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will know David Green, who is a member of the Government's energy advisory panel, and who said:
	"There is a complete absence in the White Paper of any significant new measures to reduce the damage done to Britain's green generators over the last three years by weak and inconsistent delivery of the Government's policies".
	How on earth has he come to that conclusion?

Patricia Hewitt: The energy White Paper not only confirms the Government's commitment to the target of installing 10,000 MW of good quality combined heat and power by 2010, but sets out several new measures to support CHP. State aid approval for the exemption of CHP electricity from the climate change levy—a policy for which David Green strongly pressed—has now been given. It is frustrating that it took some time to get that state aid exemption, but it will undoubtedly help. Although I well understand the frustration of CHP producers—although not necessarily consumers—about falling electricity prices, we are on target to meet the 2010 target for good-quality CHP.

Pharmacies

Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacy services.

Patricia Hewitt: We received the OFT report on 17 January and we are considering our response across Government, in consultation, of course, with the devolved Administrations and relevant stakeholders. As part of that process, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), wrote to all hon. Members seeking their views.

Andrew Dismore: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I have received objections from hundreds of constituents who are outraged by the OFT's proposals? They vigorously protest that their local pharmacies are convenient, that they know and trust the pharmacist, that they often have no transport to go elsewhere, and that they are not pushed into buying unnecessary products. Does my right hon. Friend agree that good health is supported by a trusting relationship between pharmacist and public, and can she assure me that the vital network of local pharmacies—which commands a high level of confidence and satisfaction from our communities, as is recognised in the OFT's report—will be protected and that nothing will be done that will prejudice the local pharmacy services that so many of our constituents value highly?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I have had similar representations and discussions in my constituency. I welcome the OFT's report, which is a useful analysis of the competition aspects of the control of entry regulations, and of the benefits that greater competition can bring. I am also clear, however, that there are limits to markets, particularly in the delivery of health services. It is essential that pharmacists should be able to fulfil not only their present valued and trusted role but the wider role envisaged for them in the NHS plan: simply deregulating the market will not do that. We therefore need a balanced package of measures, and that is precisely what we will draw up, in consultation, as I have already indicated.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Secretary of State's response to that question. I suggest that the OFT was simply wrong in believing that pharmacists are merely shops; in fact, they are a network of primary health care professionals who play a key role in preventive health and in distributing drugs to the elderly and the sick. The Government will not be forgiven lightly if she allows the pharmacists to go the same way as the post office network.

Patricia Hewitt: The OFT's remit is to look at the effect on competition, among other things, of Government regulation. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman—who, at least some of the time, is a supporter of competition policies—would welcome that role for the OFT. It is not part of the OFT's remit, however, to look at the much wider health service objectives or the role that community pharmacists can play—an even greater role, as I have indicated—in supporting modernisation and improvements in the national health service. That is our job in government, and, as I have indicated, we will come forward with a balanced package that will achieve those health and community aims.

Michael Weir: The Secretary of State will know that in Scotland the situation is slightly different, because health is dissolved—[Interruption.] Health is devolved, but competition policy is not. She will also be aware that the Scottish Parliament is due to be dissolved at the end of next week for the forthcoming election. Will she give an assurance that no decision will be made on the OFT policy until there has been consultation with the new Scottish Parliament and new Scottish Executive following elections on 1 May?

Patricia Hewitt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the NHS might be dissolved if the nationalists won the elections. Let me make it clear: of course we are already discussing this issue with our colleagues, not only in Scotland but in Wales and Northern Ireland. We will arrive at the decision in full consultation with the devolved Administration, who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, are responsible for the health service in Scotland.

Candy Atherton: There are strong concerns about this issue in Cornwall, where many of our supermarkets are out of town, and I receive petitions almost daily opposing the proposals. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that nothing will be done that would hurt local pharmacies. May I reiterate, however, that real concerns exist, and we urgently need reassurance?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely understand not only my hon. Friend's concerns but those of her constituents. Every Member has had similar representations. Let me stress that although competition can clearly bring benefits to consumers, the crucial issue is that pharmacists should be able to enhance their role within the NHS plan and meet the health care needs of all our constituents, particularly those living in poorer areas and rural areas.

Tim Yeo: Since the OFT's report confirms that community pharmacies do an excellent job, are trusted by their customers and are accessible to the vast majority of people, is it not clear that were the recommendations accepted it would show once more that this Labour Government care nothing either for those small and often family-run businesses that are the backbone of many communities, or for their customers, who rely on them as a valuable source of health advice?

Patricia Hewitt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my earlier answers on precisely that point. I am glad that the Conservative party now recognises that there are limits to markets, especially in health care. I hope that Conservative Members will support the other policies that our Government have introduced to promote social inclusion and to ensure that markets work for everyone's benefit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will soon tell us that he supports policies on the minimum wage, rights at work and improved health and safety in the workplace, which are other policies that set limits on uncontrolled markets.

Martin O'Neill: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? In Scotland, there is no question that Labour will not lead the Administration after May, as it does at present, and the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council, the professional body for pharmacists, is working with the Scottish Executive on an extremely ambitious programme for the expansion of community pharmacies, which goes far beyond anything envisaged in England at present. It would be highly dangerous for those ambitious plans to be frustrated by a cack-handed approach by the OFT to what is currently an excellent service for communities.

Patricia Hewitt: The service is indeed excellent in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. It can be improved further, as my hon. Friend said, by the plans that are being developed in Scotland. As far as England is concerned, the NHS plan sets out a full vision of the greater role that pharmacists can play not only in helping to ensure that patients get the full benefit of medicines, but by undertaking some of the initial diagnosis and advice work. We value pharmacists' work and think that it can be improved and strengthened further in the NHS plan. However, let me stress that decisions will not be made by the OFT because its role in these matters is advisory. The Government will make the decisions in the full context of the NHS plan and equivalent developments in the devolved Administrations.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State be a little more open about when she expects the announcements to be made? Whether she likes it or not, the OFT's proposals have caused great unease among our constituents and communities. She said that the report was published on 17 January and that she is in discussions with the devolved Parliaments, but they are about to dissolve before elections. When will we get an answer to this particular problem?

Patricia Hewitt: As soon as possible.

EU Regional Funds

Joyce Quin: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the future of EU regional funds.

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a paper on 6 March that launched a joint consultation on the future of EU structural funds. This set out the preferred approach, the EU framework for regional policy. It would focus EU regional assistance on the poorest member states. Richer member states such as the UK would finance their regional policy domestically and we would increase UK Government spending to ensure that the UK nations and regions do not lose out financially as a result of reform.

Joyce Quin: I welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that regions such as the north-east will not lose out, whatever the future of EU regional funding may be. I also encourage the Government to follow a policy of further economic decentralisation in the UK. What discussions have taken place with other European Union countries—especially the new countries that will be members by the time that the important decisions are made—and what support have they given to the proposals?

Alan Johnson: We have had a number of discussions. Commissioner Barnier kicked off a round of discussions last year but, as yet, not many EU member states have framed their objectives and policy. In fact, only the Netherlands, as far as I know, has said what it intends to do and what approach it intends to take. That approach is similar to our own. The document is a consultation document—now that other EU member states have seen it, we will, I am sure, get their reaction. As for the accession countries, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and I have made a point of speaking to the accession countries about those issues. They will not be part of the decision, but they will certainly experience its effects.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that in the past North Yorkshire has benefited particularly from the old objectives 3 and 5. Is he aware that that there are now pockets of rural poverty in constituencies such as the Vale of York, where rural wages are 12 per cent. lower than urban wages? In the review, will the Department ensure that the moneys that come to regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber will be spread evenly between rural and urban areas?

Alan Johnson: We will ensure that our proposal is for a much more devolved and locally led allocation of European regional structural funds, which account for only a quarter of the money that we spend in the regions in this country. It is important to ensure that overarching principles govern the allocation of EU structural funds, and that they take into account the needs of rural areas.
	However, to answer the hon. Lady's question, it is much more appropriate to look at the way in which regional development agencies and we allocate money domestically at the moment to ensure that rural areas get their fair share. We are doing so, and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an active participant in discussions with the RDAs. The hon. Lady has made an important point that needs to be looked at, quite apart from objectives 3 and 5, which she mentioned.

Dave Watts: Can the Minister tell us when he will be able to publish his proposals on areas such as Merseyside, which enjoy objective 1 funding at present? Can he give an assurance that he will discuss his proposals with organisations such as the Alliance for Regional Aid?

Alan Johnson: I met a delegation led by my hon. Friend, so he knows that we are willing to discuss that. We published the consultation document on 6 March. It is important to point out that because the 10 accession countries are all poorer than the poorest EU member states, if we did not change the basis of European Union structural funds, the whole basis for allocating funds would change. Indeed, it is calculated that the total of 83 million people who receive objective funding in the European Union now would be reduced to 35 million, including my hon. Friend's constituents. To those people, of course, nothing material has changed in their plight or conditions. The only change would be in the calculation because of the accession countries. That is why we put that consultation document out, and why we think that we are taking the right approach to the problem.

Rural Post Offices

Jonathan Djanogly: How many rural post offices have closed within the last 12 months.

Stephen Timms: There were 97 net closures of rural post offices in the twelve months to December 2002. The number of net closures in the last quarter of that year, the most recent for which data are available, was zero.

Jonathan Djanogly: St. Ives post office in my constituency—a rural post office serving 17,000 people—was recently closed, having been given three weeks' notice, which I find quite unacceptable. Thanks to a massive local effort and a receptive Post Office, St. Ives is to reopen. However, that raises some serious issues, such as the lack of closure notification procedures, the lack of sourcing of alternative sites, the Post Office's inability to recruit and retain sub-postmasters and the lack of attractive products, which are leading to the closure of scores of post offices around the country. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the attention of the House the success of the Government's measures to ensure that where there is a proposed closure an alternative can be found. He has done the House a service by explaining how that works—it is exactly what the Government have done. The Post Office has put in place a team of rural transfer advisers to make sure that when the problems that he described arise alternatives can be found, as has been done successfully in his constituency. I made the point that in the most recent quarter for which data are available there were no closures at all. The number of net closures that I gave for the year was less than half the number in 2001–02, which, in turn, was half the number in the preceding year. We have committed £450 million to maintain the rural network up to 2006. We have therefore backed fully, with funding, our commitment that there should be no avoidable closures of rural post offices, and I am delighted that that is working in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Stephen Ladyman: Many of the rural post offices in my constituency have tried to meet the challenge facing them by diversifying into retail newsagency. They have just discovered that retail newsagents have to obtain newspapers from wholesale newsagents that are granted a monopoly by newspaper publishers—a monopoly that has been abused by increasing service charges by 650 per cent. Would we not help rural post offices generally and retail newsagents across the country by breaking the monopoly of wholesale newsagents?

Stephen Timms: Of course, these arrangements have been in place for a considerable time, but the Office of Fair Trading is looking at precisely the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and it will report back in due course.

Roy Beggs: In Northern Ireland, just as elsewhere in Great Britain, rural post offices, in addition to delivering pensions and benefits conveniently, contribute to local village life. Will the Minister acknowledge that there has been disproportionate encouragement to benefit recipients to have bank accounts, and will he use some of the £450 million that he has mentioned to indicate in simple terms that people may still choose, as he has announced this morning, to receive payments in cash at their local post offices? That might just help to avert some further closures.

Stephen Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of post offices in the life of a community, and he is right to draw attention to that point. However, in putting in place arrangements for the change to automated credit transfer, we have ensured that anyone who wishes to obtain their benefit in cash from a post office—either through a Post Office card account, or through any of the basic bank accounts that all banks will offer—can continue to do so. Those accounts will be fully accessible at the local post office. The great benefit is that people will be able to use the bank accounts and go to the post office, and post offices will be offering the services that people increasingly want. The old-fashioned giros did not offer a future for the post office, but our new arrangements will.

Andrew Robathan: Given that rural post offices will lose some 40 per cent. of their income over the next two years with the introduction of universal banking, and given that the Government's largesse of £150 million a year will continue only to the end of 2005, taking us up to the next general election, will the Minister explain what happens then? The House, sub-postmasters and the public who use post offices will want to know whether this Government have a long-term, coherent plan for the future of rural post offices after the next general election.

Stephen Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the figures that I have given to the House on the falling number of post office closures in rural areas. His suggestion that 40 per cent. of income will be lost to the Post Office assumes, of course, that nobody who obtains their benefit at a post office at the moment will do so in future. However, very many of the benefit recipients who currently use post offices will use the Post Office card account, a basic bank account or an ordinary bank account and continue to obtain their benefit in cash at local post offices, thereby generating income for the post office network. The arrangements beyond 2006 will, of course, be a matter for the next spending review, but the Government's commitment to ensuring a successful future for the post office network in every part of the country will be maintained.

Christmas Day Working

Ann Coffey: What steps she is taking to improve protection for employees against retail employers who force their staff to work on Christmas day.

Alan Johnson: The Government wish to maintain the special nature of Christmas day. I expect to launch a consultation on possible new regulation of opening by large stores a little later this year.

Ann Coffey: I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome his announcement about a consultation. However, does he agree that it cannot be right that there are no trading restrictions on Christmas day when it falls on any day other than a Sunday? It cannot be right that shop workers have to rely on the goodwill of their employers. Surely the only real protection for shop workers is legislation.

Alan Johnson: It is an anomaly that the terms of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 protect shop workers and others working in the retail sector when Christmas day falls on a Sunday. The basis of that Act was that Sunday is a special day, and everyone agrees that Christmas day is also a special day. We are minded to introduce legislation. Our view is that we need to consult fully beforehand, but we feel that the time to legislate is when there is not a problem. All the retailers say, "We have no wish to open on a Sunday, but if any of our competitors do, we will." It is important to act before we get on to that slippery slope.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the fact that many people, myself included, agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) that it seems both unfair and mean-spirited to coerce people into working on Christmas day when they would otherwise not choose to do so, does the Minister accept that when contemplating legislation, it is essential to be sure that legislation and regulation are necessary, and that the form that they take is proportionate to the size of the problem and the level of the protest about it?

Alan Johnson: I fully accept that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to retailers last year to see whether there was an alternative to regulation. If there was an agreement between the major retailers, none of whom was interested in opening on Christmas day, that would probably breach fair trading rules, so that option has been ruled out. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If there were any sensible alternatives to regulation, we would pursue them. My view at present—that is the reason for the consultation document—is that there is no alternative, and it will be beneficial regulation, not least because many retailers have said to us, "Look, we agree with you, but either put up or shut up. We will open if our competitors open, and the best way you can deal with this", many retailers tell us, "is through regulation."

Energy White Paper

Gareth Thomas: What discussions she has had with Ofgem about the Energy White Paper.

Patricia Hewitt: Ministers and officials have held a number of discussions with Ofgem about the energy White Paper, both before and after its publication. The White Paper includes a number of commitments relating to Ofgem, which we are pursuing with the regulator.

Gareth Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of comments by the head of Ofgem that the Government's environmental and social guidance to Ofgem is not yet strong enough? In the light of those comments, will she undertake to revisit the guidance, and will she consider further whether Ofgem requires additional sustainable energy expertise on its board of directors?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree that the environmental guidance needs to be strengthened in the light of our White Paper objectives and commitments. We have that work in hand. We have also, as we state in the White Paper, agreed with Ofgem that it will produce regulatory impact assessments, including environmental impact assessments, on all new policies. I am delighted to say that a new non-executive board member with strong environmental credentials has been selected, and we will make an announcement about that shortly.

Nick Gibb: In a written answer, the Energy Minister stated that increasing the renewables obligation from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. will add £1 billion to the annual cost of electricity generation. On the assumption of a 3p buyer price, does the right hon. Lady believe that she will achieve 20 per cent., and if not, what price does she envisage, and what effect will that new price have on the cost of electricity to consumers?

Patricia Hewitt: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have published on the DTI website the extensive economic modelling work that underpins the analysis and the conclusions of the White Paper. As I said earlier to the House, the renewables obligation by 2010 will deliver a £1 billion boost to investment in the renewables sector. Energy prices at present, with the sole exception of industrial gas, are lower than they have been for about 20 years. A striking aspect of the consultation that we did with the public was that cheap electricity was seen as rather less important than meeting our carbon obligations. I therefore believe that we will be right to continue with the renewables obligation in order to ensure that we meet not only the 2010 targets but our 2020 objectives as well.

Bill O'Brien: Has my right hon. Friend taken into consideration the views of the regulator about what will happen when we become a net importer of gas, and the fact that we could become more reliant on gas over the next 10 years? As has been proved in relation to oil in the last few weeks, an unstable situation in regard to gas supply could have a traumatic effect on domestic and industrial energy supplies if we do not take action now. Will my right hon. Friend tell us which way she intends to go on the issue of the net import of gas?

Patricia Hewitt: The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is one of the reasons why we need a new energy policy. Over the next five years or so, we will indeed become a net importer of oil and gas. We already import about half the coal that we use. This will change the energy position in the United Kingdom. We will have to pay even greater attention to possible threats to the security of supply that could result from international events. Let me stress, however, that we have been importing oil from Russia for the last 37 years or so without any interruption, and that much of our gas supply will come from Norway, a close colleague and partner. We are already putting in place a new treaty with Norway to ensure that we will be able to secure those supplies.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Entrepreneurship

Wayne David: What measures she is taking to encourage more women to become business entrepreneurs.

Patricia Hewitt: A national strategic framework for business support for women's enterprise is in the final stages of development by the Small Business Service, in conjunction with Prowess—the nationwide network of women entrepreneurs—and a cross-government policy group. This strategy will enable us to support far more women in moving into self-employment and setting up their own businesses.

Wayne David: Is the Minister aware of studies that have taken place in the United States that show that black women, especially, make excellent entrepreneurs when sufficient support is given? Does she believe that the issue could be considered in that context in this country?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are not doing nearly as well as other countries, including the United States, at encouraging women, including black women, into business start-ups. If women in the United Kingdom were starting up businesses at the same rate as men are, we would have about 100,000 more businesses in the United Kingdom every year. That is why we are giving such priority to this issue, and ensuring—both through Prowess and the work of the phoenix fund—that we support women from all our different communities who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs.

Andrew Turner: What is the Minister doing to encourage women to become sub-postmistresses? Have the Government implemented recommendation 18 of the performance and innovation unit report that was mentioned earlier? It states:
	"The Post Office should develop a role for post offices as Government General Practitioners."
	At a time when Haylands, Horsebridge Hill and Parkhurst post offices in my constituency are under threat of closure, the Government appear to have nothing to say on this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the mark.

Louise Ellman: Does the Minister recognise that women entrepreneurs have been greatly assisted by the innovation that was a key feature of the existing European structural funds, which has helped women in Merseyside and the north-west by supporting investment funds and training, and by giving encouragement to women to become involved in business? Will she ensure that, in any changes to structural funds, the innovation that allowed women to be supported in this way will be continued?

Patricia Hewitt: When I was in Merseyside just last week, I saw an example of precisely that kind of entrepreneurial spirit at Blackburn House—in this case, a social enterprise created and led by women for women. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the consultation document that the Chancellor and I recently published on the future of the structural funds and regional policy sets out a sensible way forward to ensure that the work already being done under the structural funds and under the regional development agencies will continue, following enlargement, in what we believe will be an even more effective and efficient way.

Domestic Violence

Gwyn Prosser: What recent measures she has taken to help women victims of domestic violence.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government are currently consulting with a view to legislating to tackle domestic violence. We are funding refuges, and we have funded a new helpline for women fleeing violence. My Department is developing initiatives to raise awareness, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police and prosecution services work far more effectively together to deal with the problem.

Gwyn Prosser: I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as director of the east Kent refuge.
	The domestic violence statistics are staggering. Crimes of domestic violence constitute a quarter of all violent crimes, are responsible for the deaths of 50 per cent. of female murder victims, and continue to claim two lives each week. Is it not time help was given at grass-roots level—to, for instance, the voluntary refuge support groups that must still rely on jumble sales and voluntary exercises for their funds?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree that far more needs to be done, especially at local level, to support not just women but children fleeing domestic violence, and to deal with this appalling violent crime. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced an additional investment of £14 million to tackle the problem—in particular, through the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships—and my hon. Friend the deputy Minister for Women recently announced an additional £9 million to help women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence.

Sandra Gidley: Following the publication of the Womenspeak survey initiated by the Minister, which found that 70 per cent. of women had experienced problems with the Benefits Agency, what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that women who refuse to give the names of violent partners are not regarded as fraudsters? [Interruption.]

Patricia Hewitt: I am sorry to note that Opposition Members appear to have no interest in this rather important subject.
	I agree that more needs to be done to deal with the Benefits Agency problem. My hon. Friend the deputy Minister for Women is taking it up with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of the women's safety unit in Cardiff, a unique multidisciplinary project which has, during its short life, had a considerable impact in reducing the amount of domestic violence in the city? Will she join me in congratulating the unit on obtaining long-term funding from the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly to continue its good work? [Interruption.]

Patricia Hewitt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gummer, there is far too much in the way of loud prolonged conversation. This is an important matter.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I readily congratulate the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which provides an excellent example of what happens when all the agencies in the voluntary sector work together to ensure that women and children are given the support that they need.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister just said that the Government had funded a new helpline, and indeed the Government held a press launch in December last year. But the line will not be up and running until the autumn, with £1 million of Government money and £1 million from Comic Relief. Why was it launched nearly a year before it will become operational, thus raising expectations and making life for the two main charities who will run it—Women's Aid and Refuge—even more difficult?

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Lady would expect, we agreed with all our partners in the helpline that it was desirable to announce what was being done, so that we would receive the maximum support for this excellent initiative.

Bob Spink: If she will make a statement on the forthcoming Green Paper on domestic violence.

Patricia Hewitt: The Home Office will shortly publish a consultation paper setting out proposals to strengthen the law against domestic violence. Those proposals will cover three broad areas, ensuring the safety of domestic violence victims, bringing offenders to justice and strengthening confidence in the criminal justice system.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister agree that it is shocking that even now two children a week die from domestic violence? When domestic violence takes place, children are usually in the vicinity. What will the Green Paper do to increase protection for children, and will it address the problem of low levels of supervision in child contact centres?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Ministers and local authorities are considering how to strengthen protection for children in contact centres and situations in which access is disputed. I stress that the Bill on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consult will be the first dedicated to the issue of domestic violence since 1976, when Jo Richardson—whom many, at least on the Labour Benches, will remember with deep affection—introduced the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976.

Kali Mountford: Is my right hon. Friend alarmed to discover from recent surveys that many young men say that if their girlfriends step out of line, it is all right to give them a slap? Does that not mean that we should invest much more in what seems to be an in-bred cultural problem and not just the result of strains and stresses within the family?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Domestic violence is fundamentally about cultural attitudes and power relationships between men and women. The Department for Education and Skills is considering what can be done in schools and the education system to tackle the problem of appalling attitudes towards violence against women that are evidenced among too many young men today.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Consolidated Fund Act 2003
	Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003

Iraq (Overnight Events)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
	President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein expired at 1 o'clock this morning. Just as Saddam failed to take his final opportunity to disarm by peaceful means, so he has now failed to take his final opportunity to depart in peace and avoid the need for coalition military action. I draw the House's attention to Hans Blix's comments in New York yesterday that he was disappointed that three and a half months of inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
	President Bush announced at 3.15 this morning on behalf of the coalition that operations had begun with attacks on selected targets of military importance. Those attacks were carried out by coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on more than one target in the vicinity of Baghdad, following information relating to the whereabouts of very senior members of the Iraqi leadership. Those leaders are at the very heart of Iraq's command and control system, responsible for directing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
	Saddam Hussein's regime is the chief obstacle to the disarmament of Iraq. The military plan is therefore crafted around his removal from power. We will place a copy of the Government's military campaign objectives in the Library later today.
	In addition to those attacks, coalition forces yesterday carried out certain preliminary operations against Iraqi artillery, surface-to-surface missiles, and air defence systems within the southern no-fly zone. Those were prudent preparatory steps, using coalition air capabilities previously used in the no-fly zones, designed to reduce the threat to coalition forces in Kuwait. The protection of our servicemen and women is a matter of paramount importance.
	The House will be aware of reports of Iraqi missile attacks against Kuwait. Those incidents are being investigated by personnel with appropriate skills and the necessary protection. There are no reported casualties so far, but I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can confirm to the House at this stage.
	I would like to draw the attention of the House to two particular points. First, that coalition forces will take every possible care to minimise civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. The coalition will use modern weapons, which are more accurate than ever, but we can never unfortunately exclude the possibility of civilian casualties, tragic though those always are. However, people should treat with caution Iraq's claims of civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are not our enemies, and we are determined to do all we can to help them build the better future that they deserve.
	Secondly, I caution the House against suggestions that this campaign will be over in a very short time. We all certainly hope that offensive operations will be over quickly, but we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness, with an utter disregard for human life.
	I turn now to the United Kingdom's armed forces. I have set out in successive statements the forces that we have prepared for this purpose. We have deployed a substantial naval force of 29 Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean. The land force is led by Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division and includes 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, 16 Air Assault Brigade, 7th Armoured Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. We have also deployed an air force comprised of about 100 fixed-wing aircraft and 27 helicopters. In all, about 45,000 servicemen and women have been assigned to the campaign to disarm Iraq.
	Our forces will make a substantial contribution to the military action to disarm Iraq, which we will pursue at a time and on a schedule of our own choosing. They are trained, equipped and ready for the tasks they may now need to undertake. British forces are already engaged in certain military operations, although the House will understand why I cannot give further details at this stage.
	Events over the coming days will dominate the 24-hour media. The House will recognise that we must all be wary of jumping to conclusions on the basis of "breaking news" before there has been time to conduct a proper investigation. Similarly, the House will understand—and I hope that the media will too—that if we respond to media pressure for instant operational detail, we could risk the security and safety of our forces. We cannot therefore offer a running commentary on media reports. I will ensure, however, that the House is kept fully informed of significant developments. That is why I am making this statement today. In addition to making statements as and when necessary, I will arrange for a short summary to be placed in the Library of the House, with copies made available to members in the Vote Office, as warranted by the day's events.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be travelling to the European Council this afternoon. Once further significant military action has begun, and UK forces are substantially engaged, the Prime Minister will ask to make a broadcast to the nation.
	Once again we are placing an enormous weight of responsibility on the shoulders of our armed forces. We have not taken the decision to do so lightly. The commitment to military action of service personnel is always the gravest step that any Government can undertake. I know that the thoughts and prayers of this House and of our country are with them, and their families, as they embark on their mission. We hope for their safe and swift return.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his timely statement to the House, and for providing me with a copy in advance. I am grateful for his assurance that he will continue to make regular oral statements to the House, and put a daily summary of events in the Library.
	First, I want to underline one part of the Secretary of State's statement—that the size and scale of the British forces involved in this operation show that they are no token commitment. They are making a very real contribution to the operation, and we should be proud of them.
	Events overnight confirm that military operations to disarm Saddam Hussein are likely to be unpredictable. We appreciate that in any conflict of this nature, especially with modern electronic surveillance, targets will present themselves for attack at very short notice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the military commanders will continue to have the necessary autonomy to act quickly and flexibly to seize such opportunities, as and when they arise?
	When the President of the United States refers, as he did this morning, to "coalition forces" being in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, is he implying that UK forces were involved in the action overnight? If so, is the Secretary of State able to say in what capacity?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the coalition is far wider than just the UK and US and that it comprises some 35 nations, although not all are directly involved in military action?
	There are reports of Scud B missile attacks on Kuwait and coalition forces there. It may be too early for the Secretary of State to confirm the exact nature of these attacks, but if they were Scud Bs—with a range of at least 600 km—would that not confirm that Saddam Hussein had continued to lie and failed to disarm? Can the Secretary of State confirm how effective the US theatre missile defences have been? Is he able to say what warheads the enemy missiles were carrying? Can he explain what caused the explosion reported in Kuwait City? Can he provide any details about the exchange of artillery fire on the Iraqi border with Kuwait?
	There has been widespread concern about the possible interaction of Turkish and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, perhaps at a later stage of the conflict. Can he comment on overnight reports that Iraqi Kurdish forces have placed themselves under US command? If this is true, it is a welcome development. There are also reports of Iraqi soldiers giving themselves up; this is most welcome. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they are being treated as bona fide prisoners of war and will be accorded their proper rights under the Geneva convention? Will he also clarify what role they might be invited to play eventually at later stages of the conflict, perhaps as volunteers in the fighting to disarm Saddam Hussein?
	What continued diplomatic initiatives are being maintained with France and Russia, who have both issued public criticism of the action carried out by the coalition? Will the Government and the United States make every effort to engage the United Nations in the humanitarian tasks, which are far more the inevitable result of 30 years of Saddam Hussein's misrule than of any damage likely to be caused by military action?
	We have had a great debate over many months about military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. We are, of course, a free country in which people continue to have every right to protest, but I hope that all parties will agree that such protests should remain within the law. It is a tragic inevitability of war that innocent people will die, and we mourn them. Would not it be so much better for Saddam Hussein to end the suffering of the Iraqi people now and surrender immediately?
	The UK has embarked on this course alongside our allies to disarm Saddam Hussein because he is a threat. I support the Secretary of State in his warning that, inevitably, there will be events in the days and weeks ahead that test our determination. It may take longer than we hope, but we must have the resolve to see this through.
	I conclude with the words of Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins who addressed his 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment yesterday with these words:
	"Let us bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for our having been there."
	He spoke for our whole nation and we wish him and all our fine armed forces the best of good fortune.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations and for the support of Her Majesty's official Opposition.
	On his question about the responsibility of commanders on the ground, I assure him that they will have the delegated responsibilities necessary to allow them to take appropriate action. Equally, I make it clear that those delegated responsibilities are always approved by Ministers, consistent with the usual arrangements.
	On the specific involvement of UK forces, President Bush made it clear in his address overnight that these were coalition operations. I do not believe that it is appropriate to specify what particular forces were used for each particular operation. These are coalition operations involving a wide range of military support; at least the number of countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
	Consistent with what I said earlier, I do not intend to comment in detail about the considerable number of missiles that have been targeted against Kuwait. We are investigating precisely the nature of the missiles and of the warheads with which they are equipped. I understand, but only from recent news reports, that defensive systems have been used to good effect to deal with at least one such missile.
	There is close co-operation between the United States and Kurdish forces in the north of Iraq and I am confident that that will continue. I give the House the assurance that prisoners of war will be dealt with in accordance with international law. There are certainly signs of a growing number of disaffected Iraqis abandoning support for Saddam Hussein. This morning I discussed with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the continuing diplomatic initiatives that will be taken. As I have said, the Prime Minister will go to the European Council meeting this afternoon.

Paul Keetch: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and associate myself and my colleagues with his comments and those of the shadow Defence Secretary about the excellence of the men and women of our armed forces? They will perform whatever tasks they are set with extraordinary courage and great skill. They are a credit to our nation. At this time we must remember their families at home. Our troops and their families should know that they have the support of the full House today.
	We all hope that this will be a swift and successful campaign with as few casualties as possible on all sides. The Secretary of State outlined today details of the strike that took place in the small hours of the morning. We thank him for that and we understand the constraints that he has in saying more. In relation to the reports of the Iraqi attacks on Kuwait this morning, does it appear that the warning procedures set in place by coalition forces have worked extremely successfully?
	Finally, I understand that later today the permanent under-secretary will announce that the unmarried partners of members of the armed forces serving in the Gulf will receive proper compensation, should their partners pay the ultimate price. The Secretary of State will know of my concern and interest in this matter. If that is the case, may I thank him? It is most welcome.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He asked two specific questions. I was enormously impressed by the television pictures this morning of British forces and, indeed, members of the press, reacting quickly to warning procedures. We undoubtedly have concerns about the offensive action taken by Iraq against Kuwait and our deployed forces. Today there will be a ministerial statement on unmarried partners along the lines that the hon. Gentleman advocated.

Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend has outlined the progress in this campaign. We must win the campaign and not allow our armed forces to go into conflict without the correct weaponry to protect them. Could he say something about the more controversial weapons that may need to be used, such as depleted uranium heads on weapons and cluster bombs, for our constituents who may have concerns about them?

Geoff Hoon: I emphasise that a range of weapons will have to be used to prosecute this campaign successfully and achieve the successful result that my hon. Friend rightly advocates. I will not allow our forces to be prevented from using those lawful weapons that are most suitable for achieving those tasks. I assure her equally that those weapons are used only after the most careful consideration. Depleted uranium and cluster bombs have a particular military purpose. If that purpose is necessary, they will be used; if it is not, they will not be used.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of my constituents based at RAF Marham are in the Gulf and will almost certainly have played a part in this first phase of operations. They will have shown their normal, high standard of professionalism. Does he agree that they now deserve the 100 per cent. support of all the public? Surely the time has come for these anti-war demonstrations to cease.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those armed forces deserve our support. It is a characteristic of our society and the values that we are trying to uphold that we have a democracy and the opportunity to demonstrate, that we can set out in full the different views expressed by a mature democracy. That is what we are trying to achieve. Therefore, I would not necessarily go all the way with him in his remarks. As for his constituents, our thoughts are also with the families who are obviously concerned about the people who are engaged in action and will be engaged in the near future. It is important that we remember those people as they support those who have gone to war on our behalf.

Kevin Hughes: Given what we know about Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to deal swiftly with any false information, or disinformation, that will come out of Iraq? Does he have any intelligence on rumours that Saddam has built up a body bank that can be used to inflate the civilian casualty figures?

Geoff Hoon: Before I answer that specific question, may I commend my hon. Friend on his strong support of the military operations and on the strong support of his son, who is presently serving in the Gulf? The whole House will join me in congratulating him on that.
	I caution the House, as I did in my statement, about relying too much on propaganda from the Iraqi authorities. We have many experiences of Iraq claiming civilian casualties in the no-fly zone on days when we have not had a single aircraft flying.

James Paice: I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the role of the media. Will he go a little further? Will he take this opportunity to remind the media—both written and visual—that what we are embarked upon is a very serious action to relieve the people of Iraq and the world of these weapons? This is not some form of entertainment. It is not designed as a spectacle for people to sit glued to their screens to watch as entertainment. Will he urge upon all commentators and reporters a sense of dignity and responsibility in the way that they report what is going on? Will he urge discretion upon them not necessarily to report every single detail if doing so could cause distress to families or individuals in this country? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Geoff Hoon: I do not think that I can improve on the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He puts his case extremely well and I entirely endorse it.

Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend outline the precautions that our forces and the forces of our allies will take to ensure that the Iraqi people have adequate access to clean water and food during the actions?

Geoff Hoon: On previous occasions, when I have set out to the House the details of the British force deploying to the Gulf, I have made it clear that it is a flexible force—certainly designed for war-fighting but also designed for peacekeeping. As soon as any conflict draws to an end, forces will be in place to provide security to the people of Iraq but also to attend to their obvious humanitarian needs. Iraq has been devastated by the regime of Saddam Hussein over many years. It is a much poorer country than it should be. We will assist in the process of rebuilding that country.

Bob Spink: If at all possible, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that there is no Turkish incursion in the north of Iraq? That would be destabilising and downright dangerous. Will the Kurdish people get co-operation if, in any internal uprising, they seek to take over Kirkuk or to help the allied forces to remove Saddam Hussein's evil regime?

Geoff Hoon: A clear message has been sent to Turkey along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion; the Turkish ambassador visited the Ministry of Defence this morning. As far as the Kurds are concerned, I emphasise—as I did in response to an earlier question—the importance of preserving the position of the Kurds. They have, in the past, been the target of appalling attacks by Saddam Hussein's regime and we will never allow that to be forgotten.

Neil Gerrard: The Secretary of State has said that he wants civilian casualties to be minimised and yet, when my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked about cluster bombs, he would not rule out their use. Does he not see the contradiction between his two statements? The record of the use of cluster bombs is that they do, by their very nature, cause civilian casualties. In the first Gulf war, the United States used something like 60,000 cluster bombs, containing up to 20 million bomblets, in Iraq and Kuwait. Does the Secretary of State really believe that a repetition of that sort of behaviour will not cause civilian casualties?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that those particular weapons have a particular purpose. They will be used to achieve that purpose if it is necessary. Their use will be limited to those circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not used in a random way; but I would be failing in my duties as Secretary of State for Defence if I did not allow our armed forces to use the most appropriate weapons to deal with the threats against them.

Simon Thomas: Now that the troops are engaged and potentially under attack, we all wish that they may return safely and swiftly to this country. We all give them that support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attacks last night were in residential areas of Baghdad and were, in fact, an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein? Will he take this opportunity to spell out in more detail the UK MOD processes for ensuring the protection of civilians in such situations? What advice is taken and given in order to achieve that? Will he also say a little more about the co-ordination of the humanitarian relief that will have to follow? How will it be achieved? Will it follow a similar military chain of command, or will it be a different sort of operation?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman probably understands more about the nature of Iraqi society than he is letting on. In the past, we have heard many references to the palaces that the regime has constructed. Those palaces are residential—if the hon. Gentleman chooses to describe them as such—but they are also command and control centres that are operated by leaders of the regime simply because they are afraid of any close contact with their own people. In reality, those targets are perfectly legitimate military targets because they are the places from which Saddam Hussein exercises command and control over his own people and over weapons of mass destruction. It is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives that such military command and control facilities should be targeted.
	A great deal of effort has been made in recent months to ensure proper co-ordination. As I have said before, it is important not only that we win any war but that we win any subsequent peace. I was in Washington some weeks ago, primarily to discuss the role that the military can play in ensuring the reconstruction of Iraq. My military advisers are at pains to emphasise that we are further forward in that way than we have ever been in any previous conflict. We recognise in particular the outstanding role that Britain's armed forces can play in these kinds of peacekeeping operation. However, it is important that we get through any military conflict before we can turn our full attention to such an operation. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a great deal of effort is being made by the Government, in co-operation with other Governments, to ensure the co-ordination of that humanitarian effort.

Tom Levitt: A criticism that has been levelled at this military action has been the tag "unilateral action by the United States". Given the variety of degrees of enthusiasm with which hon. Members in this House reached the conclusion that we did the other night, if my right hon. Friend could confirm that the number of countries that are actively engaged in one way or another in supporting the present military action is 30—or, better still, if he could confirm that the number is higher than that—it would reassure many of us.

Geoff Hoon: I can confirm, as I did earlier today, that there are at least 30 countries that are actively engaged in support of military operations, and, indeed, that still more countries are offering strong political support.

George Osborne: It is clear from the action overnight that the military is targeting Saddam Hussein himself. Should Saddam Hussein be killed or overthrown, would military action cease immediately? If not, how would the Iraqi military bring the conflict to a close? What would it have to say to us to bring the conflict to an end?

Geoff Hoon: We are pursuing lawful military targets. Clearly, part of that effort is designed to disrupt the command and control of the regime. As I have said, and as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, we are seeking to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. However, with the expiry of the ultimatum to the regime and to Saddam Hussein, the means of achieving that will be through the removal of the regime. The removal of the regime will be the specific focus of our military operations.

George Galloway: Is it not the ultimate in spin-doctoring propaganda for the Minister to be quoting Dr. Hans Blix in aid of his statement—[Interruption.] The Chief Whip is heckling me but this is a free Parliament and I will be heard in it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be heard.

George Galloway: Is it not the ultimate in spin-doctoring propaganda to be praying in aid Dr. Hans Blix, who has just denounced the action that the Minister has been boasting about this morning—as have an overwhelming number of world leaders, including some of our closest friends, partners and allies? Will the Secretary of State give a straight answer to this question: given the view in the advice of the overwhelming number of unpurchased international legal experts that this action is illegal, what assurance will he give British forces that they will not face prosecution in the International Criminal Court by other countries for the actions that he has ordered them to carry out today?

Geoff Hoon: I will defend my hon. Friend's right to be heard—as I will also defend the right of the opposition in Iraq to be heard; and I should be much happier if he emphasised that more frequently than he has sometimes done in the recent past. I assure him, as I have assured the House on previous occasions, that the actions of our armed forces are entirely lawful and based on the clear advice of the Attorney-General, which has been set out for the benefit of Members.

Humfrey Malins: May I raise with the Secretary of State the issue of British civilians serving alongside our troops in the Gulf? In the event that those civilians are injured or wounded, will they receive the same protection through war pensions, insurance cover or the like as apply to our military personnel?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of something that I normally mention: the contribution made by civil servants, especially from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, to such military operations. We should not forget either them or their families in the efforts that are being made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will receive appropriate entitlements, according to the arrangements that normally prevail for their service.

Kali Mountford: On the news this morning and in the House this afternoon, my right hon. Friend said that he cannot engage in a propaganda war, giving an hour-by-hour update to the press. However, can he ensure that the House receives accurate information, which is as full and complete as is possible and practicable, as soon as he can provide it?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of accurate information. It is important that what the Government say in response to incidents is accurate and timely. Sometimes, the needs for accuracy and timeliness can be difficult to reconcile, but it is important that the Government's comments on particular incidents are based on the most accurate information that it is possible to obtain.

Andrew Robathan: Every Iraqi soldier is some mother's son and most Iraqi conscripts are as innocent as any civilian, yet we hear today that soldiers trying to surrender have been turned back by Kuwaiti border guards, and possibly sent back to execution. Will the Secretary of State ensure that all coalition allies realise the value of taking Iraqi prisoners of war, and that they treat them well and use them to get others to surrender to show the Iraqi people that our battle is with the regime and not with them?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated in Defence questions, I know that the hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge and expertise in that area, so he will understand that the situation on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border today is somewhat sensitive. It is perhaps understandable that Kuwaiti soldiers might be suspicious of those who might, initially, be trying to surrender. However, as I indicated to the House earlier, efforts are being made; I made a ministerial statement last week indicating that extra British forces will be deployed specifically to deal with prisoners of war and to carry on the good work that the hon. Gentleman has conducted in the past.

Lynne Jones: We all hope that our troops will come home safely, but I am concerned about my right hon. Friend's selective quote from Dr. Hans Blix. On the radio this morning, the chief weapons inspector cast considerable doubt on the likelihood that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Given that the whole invasion is predicated on the dubious assumption that Saddam Hussein has links with al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist terrorist organisations, and that he would supply them with weapons of mass destruction to attack the US and other western countries, what evidence does my right hon. Friend have—or what evidence has he been supplied with by the American Government—that there are such links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda? It is not sufficient to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Geoff Hoon: What I said was that Hans Blix was disappointed that his inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis about the absence of weapons of mass destruction. There is no argument about that. I am not aware that any Government, whatever their position on the need for military action, have disputed the fact that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. That has not been disputed even by countries opposed to military action. It is important not to lose sight of the reason for military operations: to enforce the will of the United Nations to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction, either, as the Prime Minister has said, when they are in the hands of the Iraqi regime itself, or when there is a risk that they might fall into the hands of unscrupulous terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda.
	I have answered the question about links before. There are clear links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. We are not sure of the precise nature of those links, but we are certainly aware that they exist. It is important that we continue to monitor that.

Andrew George: Four hundred personnel from RAF Culdrose in my constituency have been deployed to the Gulf and I know that their commitment, courage and professionalism will be much appreciated by the House. Although I realise that the Secretary of State cannot release into the public domain operational details about deployments over the coming weeks and months, will he ensure that Members of Parliament with large numbers of constituents in the region at least have a private channel of communication so that they can obtain information that might reassure the families of their constituents?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that appropriate arrangements can be put in place. As I indicated to the House, I want to follow previous practice and ensure that when it is justified details will be made available daily to all Members. However, if the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about constituents and their families they will certainly be addressed by the Ministry of Defence.

Ben Chapman: I greatly welcome the assurances about the minimisation of civilian casualties and the fact that our strikes will be specifically and carefully targeted. I accept the cautionary note struck by my right hon. Friend with regard to the length of the campaign. However, the campaign could be shortened by encouraging Iraqi defections. What overt measures are being taken to that end, other than military action? What soft measures are being taken, by way of broadcasts and leaflet drops? What are the targets? Are they at the higher or lower level of Iraqi society or throughout various strata?

Geoff Hoon: A detailed information campaign has been under way for some time to achieve precisely the objective that my hon. Friend describes: the collapse of the regime. We know that the regime is not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people—but for the appalling intimidation practised by that regime, it would have collapsed many years ago. Those information operations will continue.

Patrick Cormack: Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), will the Secretary of State confirm that the BBC World Service is being used as extensively as possible to broadcast to the Iraqi people? Is he satisfied with the co-operation that he is receiving from that service?

Geoff Hoon: As a great admirer of the BBC World Service and its objective, independent voice in the world, I am sure that those in Iraq who are able to listen to it will benefit from its services.

Alan Simpson: The United Nations has asked for the immediate establishment of a fund of $53 million to provide for emergency humanitarian aid in Iraq. Can the Minister say what contribution the UK is making to that? Can he also give the House an assurance that we will respond to a particular concern that is being raised in Britain already—namely, the demand that whatever contribution Britain makes, it should be through agencies that have clean hands, which would at least allow us as a Government to avoid having to explain the morally ambiguous position of bombing the children, then offering to feed those who survive?

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government recognise their responsibility in assisting the people of Iraq in any necessary rebuilding that might follow military operations. We are working closely with the United Nations, our coalition partners and others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in New York having discussions with Kofi Annan and other members of the United Nations in order to put that process in place.
	I make this point to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that if he thinks about it for a moment he will acknowledge it. The moment that the military operations end, it will be British soldiers, American soldiers and other members of the armed forces who will be in position, with the ability to help to resolve those problems. If they do not help to resolve those problems, there will not be time for the international organisations to move in sufficiently quickly to provide food, water, clothing and other necessary assistance. That is why the Government have allocated significant funds for members of the military to engage in the initial humanitarian help that will be required the moment that conflict ceases.

Crispin Blunt: Many hon. Members and members of the public will have read an account of the exemplary address by Colonel Collins to his battle group. I commend every single word of it, especially what he said about appropriate respect for and treatment of Iraq and Iraqis. He gave an instruction to his battle group not to fly the Union flag from their vehicles when they are on Iraqi territory in order to show that this is a war of liberation, not of occupation. Symbols are important. If that is not yet policy for all British forces engaged in this operation, will the Secretary of State consider making it so? In particular, if he considers it to be appropriate for United Kingdom forces, will he suggest to our United States allies that it may also be appropriate for them?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the careful and measured way in which the hon. Gentleman made that point, and I shall certainly look into it.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the so-called live broadcast by Saddam Hussein this morning was in fact a recording? Will he also tell us exactly what is the situation as far as Turkey is concerned, given that Turkey has so far shown considerable reluctance to give assistance in the war that is now in progress?

Geoff Hoon: I know that the nature of that broadcast has attracted some interest and that analysis is being conducted as to its origins and authenticity, but I am not in a position at this stage to comment further.
	Turkey is offering assistance. Clearly, we hope that Turkey will offer more help in coalition operations, and that is something that we continue to discuss with Turkey.

David Cameron: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has the Secretary of State given any guidance, or does he plan to give any guidance, to British news organisations that plan to maintain correspondents in Baghdad even after a state of war exists between our two countries?

Geoff Hoon: Guidance is given by the Government and general advice is given to news media about the safety and security of their correspondents in Baghdad. Above all else, what we will be looking for is the necessary objectivity from those organisations, particularly as they are operating under very considerable restrictions. Some correspondents do make the point that they are not allowed to see all that they would want to see or to go where they would choose to go in order to report objectively what is taking place. Provided that correspondents make that qualification, their safety and security is ultimately a matter for their employers.

David Hamilton: As one who was in a minority on Tuesday, I believe that it was the first time that this House collectively made such a decision—not the Prime Minister, but this House. It is therefore binding on all Members to accept that that was the decision that was taken, as much as I disagree with it. My question is a simple one. I do not believe that we should be seeing everything that happens through the media. Ministers are right to say that they will come to the House to make statements. On two days a week, we finish at 7 o'clock and we do not sit on a Friday. Will the House adjust its hours to accommodate that, because members of the public expect their MPs to be here?

Geoff Hoon: I am relieved to say, given my other responsibilities at the moment, that that is not a matter for me. [Hon. Members: "Who is responsible?"] I will come to that question in a second, when I have thought of the answer.
	On providing an opportunity for the House properly to debate these important events, I remind my hon. Friend that the Government made available three further hours in Tuesday's debate to allow more right hon. and hon. Members to address the issues. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who will shortly take business questions, will be able to give a much fuller and more detailed answer to that question.

Michael Clapham: Now that this avoidable war has started, will my right hon. Friend confirm that coalition war costs will not be paid from Iraqi oil revenues?

Geoff Hoon: We have made it absolutely clear that the benefit of Iraq's oil will be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Jim Knight: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what principles the UK military will use for their targeting and whether those principles will be shared by the United States and other allies?

Geoff Hoon: It is absolutely the case that we operate in a coalition with the same principles of international law governing the targeting. I have already set out some of those principles to the House. It is important to avoid where we can civilian casualties, while recognising the risk that there will obviously be civilian harm, but working through the details of the targeting programme to minimise those risks wherever possible.

Jeremy Corbyn: As depleted uranium weapons leave a poisonous cancerous residue for generations to come, and as cluster bombs are specifically anti-personnel devices designed to kill large numbers of people and to leave bomblets that will explode for ever more, killing many individuals, as is presently happening in Afghanistan, why are they being used now against the people of Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I have already answered that question twice today. I just say this about my hon. Friend's premise in relation to depleted uranium. Notwithstanding what he says about the poisonous residue, there is not the slightest scientific evidence to support his contention. Depleted uranium is one of the complaints that is used against the Ministry of Defence in allegations of so-called Gulf war syndrome. In fact, the forces who deployed to the Gulf suffered fewer incidences of death from cancer that those who did not deploy there. That is a very important medical fact that my hon. Friend should study a little more carefully.

Richard Younger-Ross: No doubt the Americans will also give daily briefings. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could think back to the Gulf war, when on one occasion the Americans gave details of a covert British operation. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions he will have with our coalition allies to ensure that such disclosures do not endanger British forces?

Geoff Hoon: A great deal of effort has already been made to co-ordinate the information campaign and information operations, and I assure him that that will continue.

Gavin Strang: I am sure that the House and the British people will welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the forces will do all that they can to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. Does he accept, however, that a certain proportion of even the most modern guided missiles are bound to miss their targets, and that there has to be a danger that some very extensive civilian damage will be done? In those circumstances, while I accept that getting a speedy response sometimes conflicts with having all the information, it would nevertheless be much better if the British people could get the information from the British Government as soon as possible, rather than having to rely on other sources.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend is right. As I said, there is inevitably a risk to civilians in times of conflict, but equally I point out again that we seek wherever we can to minimise those risks and to ensure that our statements are wholly accurate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform the House that there will be further statements, as the Secretary of State said, and I will keep a list of those who have not been called.

Fire Dispute

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the fire dispute.
	As the House has just heard, military action is now under way and we are in a grave and serious situation. Our armed forces are now actively engaged in the Gulf. The continuing fire dispute means that 19,000 members of the armed forces are engaged in providing emergency fire cover at home. Therefore, although the Fire Brigades Union has called off its latest strike, which was due to start at 6 o'clock this evening, the threat of a further strike means that we must still hold those troops in reserve rather than release them for other military duties.
	As the House will be aware, I have always tried to keep it fully informed of developments in the fire dispute as soon as they take place. I regret to say that, last night, the FBU recalled conference rejected the latest offer from the employers. I will be calling in the local authority employers and the FBU to meet me this afternoon. I am sure that many Members will be astonished that the conference has rejected an offer of 16 per cent. by July 2004 linked to common-sense changes in working practices. It would mean that every qualified firefighter would earn at least £25,000 a year compared with the present level of £21,500. That is a far more generous deal than most other workers in both the public and private sectors have settled for. It is double what their old pay formula would have given them, more than double what other local government employees have settled for, and compares with public sector pay settlements running at about 3 per cent. a year.
	As I have said before, the employers' revised pay offer is partly financed by transitional funding from the Government. I want to make it absolutely clear that no more transitional funding will be forthcoming from the Government. Firefighters should be in no doubt that what the employers are offering is both generous and at the absolute limit of what they can afford. With that in mind, the executive council of the FBU concluded that this deal should be accepted by its members and that the strikes should be brought to an end. That was its recommendation to the conference. Clearly, in the view of the FBU negotiators, that was an acceptable offer. The employers agreed to that, as did the Government. Yesterday, however, the recalled conference decided to ignore the recommendation of the union's executive. Instead, it rejected the deal and reverted to the original claim of 40 per cent. for firefighters and 50 per cent. for control room staff.
	The recalled conference went on to decide that it would take further soundings in the brigades with a recommendation to reject. It will meet again in two or three weeks' time. The FBU will therefore put the same deal to the same delegates at the same conference as yesterday, no doubt with the same outcome. Individual firefighters, however, have not spoken directly on this dispute since they rejected a 4 per cent. offer in a secret ballot last September. Since then, there have been months of negotiations leading to this final offer. It is a material and significantly better offer and individual firefighters should now have the right to express their individual views on it in a secret ballot.
	For now, however, we are left in a position in which, although no new strike dates have been set, we have no guarantee that further strikes will not be called, the union has repeatedly made it clear that it can call fresh strikes at any time with just seven days' notice, and unofficial action could put the public at risk during a period of heightened terrorist threat.
	The House will recall that on 28 January I announced that if it proved impossible to reach a satisfactory negotiated agreement I would introduce legislation to impose a pay settlement. Now that the FBU conference has overturned its executive, I have concluded that the time has come for legislation, particularly given the conflict in the Gulf and the heightened threat of terrorism. I am therefore giving notice today that I will introduce and publish a new two-clause Fire Services Bill tomorrow. The Bill will give me the power to impose terms and conditions within the fire service and direct the use of fire service assets and facilities. I will start immediate discussions through the usual channels about how quickly we can make progress on this Bill. In setting the level for a settlement, I would take into account the pay rise that would have been forthcoming under the FBU's existing formula, the pay review bodies' recommendations for other key public sector workers and the Government's overall approach to public sector pay.
	New terms and conditions, however, are only part of what is required for a modernised fire service. As the House is aware, we are repealing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and we are consulting on the related guidance to get the right people in the right place at the right time in order to reduce the risk of fire. I am also pressing ahead with a White Paper on a modernised fire service and legislation to achieve that objective. That will ensure that we have the legal framework in place to provide a modern, safe, efficient and effective fire service for the public and the firefighters. The choice for firefighters is simple: accepting a generous deal that has been approved by the FBU executive, or continuing a dispute that has been running for 12 months, is going nowhere and will require me to act. I believe that the common sense of individual firefighters will prevail in the end. Individual firefighters, however, must be given the chance to vote in a secret ballot, as they did on the original 4 per cent. offer in September last year.
	In the interest of public safety, 19,000 members of the armed forces are tied down to cover the possibility that the union may strike again. That is unacceptable in the difficult situation that we face today. People will rightly find it hard to believe that the firefighters would go on strike while the country is engaged in military action. I do not believe for one moment that individual firefighters would want 19,000 members of the armed forces to be held in reserve for firefighting duties at a time when their comrades are risking their lives in the Gulf. I will be making that point strongly when I meet the union and the employers this afternoon.
	It is now time for the voice of individual firefighters to be heard. I put my faith in the common sense and decency of firefighters to bring this dispute to an end. We have been reasonable; the FBU has not. Whatever people's views on the war, the country will find it extraordinary and unacceptable that at a time when our troops are being called into action, the FBU continues to act in this irresponsible way. I hope that the House will support us in these proposals.

David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement today and for prior sight of it, albeit only by 20 minutes.
	I add the Opposition's support to the Deputy Prime Minister's calls for the FBU to hold a secret ballot of its members and for it not to instigate more strike action, particularly at a time when it puts British citizens at grave risk. Today, with the coalition forces involved in military action against Iraq, that danger is starker than at any time in this dispute. Currently, up to 45,000 service personnel, including a quarter of the Army, are deployed in the Gulf. There could not be a worse time to commit 19,000 troops to stay at home on firefighting duties.
	The last time that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that, he said that he took the advice of the military. We have had clear advice from the military: the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, said that he was "extremely concerned" that keeping 19,000 troops on standby to cover for the firemen was affecting training and operational readiness. Now, we understand that troops deployed in Northern Ireland have had their tours extended, and troops now in the Gulf have had their training times and leave—often the last opportunity to see their loved ones before military action—cut. Does the Deputy Prime Minister deny that all of that is a direct result of the need to provide cover for firefighters? Clearly, he does not.
	Since December, with war looming, I have been calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to seek an injunction to ban these dangerous strikes. Will he now publish the Attorney-General's advice, as the Government did in the case of the advice on the need for a second UN resolution? I am saddened that he decided not to take that course, as I fear that that will have been detrimental to our preparations for war. Firefighters are our first line of defence in the event of a terrorist attack at home. There have been press reports that the FBU, in 19 out of the 58 regions, have refused to take part in training on equipment designed specifically to protect the public from terrorist chemical attack. Can he confirm or deny that? Are there any other examples of obstruction to preparations for a terrorist attack? What are the Government doing to put that right, and will that be dealt with in the Bill that he has proposed today?
	Opposition Members have been calling on the Government to give greater attention to the ongoing need for a higher level of preparedness for a terrorist attack and to consider appointing a senior political figure to have overall charge of preparing for a terrorist attack. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was the Minister with direct responsibility for civil defence and the threat of terrorism at home, but it is two days since his resignation and there is no sign of a replacement so we do not even have a junior Minister in charge of homeland security. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do about that, and when?
	When we last heard a statement on the fire strikes from the right hon. Gentleman he told us that he would impose a deal on firefighters if he felt that negotiations could not move forward, and he has told us that he intends to take that course of action. Conservative Members will support commencing legislation subject to seeing the details. However, we do not take lightly curbing citizens' rights without proper scrutiny, and we will insist that such legislation is time limited so that the House can examine the matter again after hostilities have ceased.
	The Deputy Prime Minister first talked about this legislation two months ago but, as it is, the timetable leading to war has been more predictable than most. Surely it would have been possible to introduce a draft Bill in that time to allow the House to examine its detail properly. It is not clear whether the two-clause Bill will give him the right to ban a strike. If it will not, what will he do if the FBU continues to strike, despite his imposition, and to put the public at risk and undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces? The answer to that will determine whether the hasty Bill that he proposes will work. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House precisely what he meant by saying that the Bill will give him powers to
	"direct the use of fire service assets and facilities"?
	I, like many hon. Members, was surprised by union activists' decision to overturn a recommendation from their leaders to accept a final pay offer. All the firefighters I have met in recent months have struck me as patriotic individuals and I cannot believe that a majority of them will reject the deal and take strike action while our troops are needed elsewhere. If they do take such action, they will put their fellow citizens at risk. The firefighters should ideally resolve the dispute now but, failing that, they should make a public declaration that they are deferring their needless action until hostilities in the Gulf and the risk of terrorism at home is over. If they refuse to do that and if there is no strike ban in the proposed Bill, the Attorney-General should secure an injunction as a matter of urgency to stop further strikes until at least the end of the war given that hostilities have begun, that our troops are incredibly overstretched in a war in the Gulf, that there is a war on terror on our doorsteps and that relevant legislation exists in the form of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I repeat Conservative Members' consistent calls for the Government urgently to ban future strikes while the country is at war.
	We shall give the Bill favourable treatment, despite the Government's failure on the issue, provided that it will apply for only a limited time, either until the cessation of hostilities or certainly within one year of it being passed. The international crisis requires all parties in the House to put aside their differences until the cessation of military action. Conservative Members will do that, but after the crisis is over, the House of Commons will want a proper debate so that the inevitable errors in such hasty legislation are not imposed on the country for all time.

John Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for highlighting the difficulties that arise from the situation. I agree with several of his points, and perhaps I may address them in order.
	We have asked for the advice of the military and the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the number of armed forces personnel available during the dispute—19,000—is the exact number that was available before. He raised the proper concern, as did I, that that is the same as it was before we found ourselves in this hostile situation, and I agree that the situation is difficult. The advice that we received was the same as before: we have sufficient armed personnel to deal with the fire dispute and the situation will not constitute a threat to public safety.
	The judgment about what represents a threat to public safety will put great emphasis on the thoughts of the Attorney-General. I note that the shadow Attorney-General is present so I can reiterate the argument that I put to him before—I am sure that he will confirm it. The Attorney-General will judge whether there is a threat to public safety and he will decide whether to act on that. It is proper for me to approach the Attorney-General. I saw him yesterday and gave him the latest update. He will consider that and take it into account when he decides whether to take any action. Every Minister who has spoken about these matters from the Dispatch Box has said that the Attorney-General must make his judgment.
	One or two brigades have not co-operated on occasions. One of the problems with the negotiations is that the brigades are given a great deal of authority and they can act individually. Indeed, that relates to the right hon. Gentleman's question about whether the power exists to direct facilities. The Government's powers are limited at the moment because they are delegated to the fire authorities. That is one reason why I propose that the Bill should take back the power to direct should fire brigades refuse to carry out instructions. That is the proper thing to do and we can discuss that matter when we consider the Bill.
	It is true that one or two people—although not representatives of the FBU groups—have said unofficially that they will not co-operate with new dimension training. We made it clear to the union that that is unacceptable because the training relates to measures on terrorism. Such incidents are isolated, but they are unacceptable.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked which Minister is currently in charge of safety matters. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary chairs the relevant Cabinet Committee, which is the civil contingencies committee. I think that we would all agree that my right hon. Friend is a pretty senior politician. He has taken steps to replace the Minister who resigned, and no doubt he will make an appropriate statement on that. My right hon. Friend has direct responsibility for safety matters and nothing has suffered due to the resignation.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would want to use the proposed Bill to impose a deal. The Bill is modelled, to an extent, on the Fire Services Act 1947, although he will see when we consider it that it is not exactly the same. The Government at that time decided to introduce legislation to allow them to impose a deal. In these circumstances, I will take powers to fix or modify the fire brigades' conditions of service after making a judgment about whether to impose a deal, and I have outlined how that would be done and the factors that I would take into account. I give notice, however, that I cannot do that until the House agrees to those powers, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support on that. Time and accountability will be discussed by the relevant people.
	We shall consider the Bill in due course, although I do not agree that it should contain anti-strike legislation. [Interruption.] Well, I am only giving my judgment. The right hon. Gentleman can disagree, but he will see what is in the Bill after I produce it and we can discuss it then. After all, I need the co-operation of Opposition parties in order to take such a Bill through the House. I cannot just announce it because the Bill must go through the proper democratic procedures, and I assure him that that will happen. The Bill will be published tomorrow and it will help matters.
	Members of the FBU have the opportunity to demand a secret ballot so that we know what firefighters truly think about the 16 per cent. deal. However, I warn them that if they do not accept the deal, I shall secure powers that would allow me to decide whether to impose such an agreement.

Edward Davey: May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement and for keeping the House informed? I agree that it is astonishing and regrettable that yesterday's FBU conference rejected the offer. Indeed, it was surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister did not make a stronger statement that a fire strike in a time of war and heightened tension would be an appalling threat to public safety, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made clear. Surely such industrial action at a time of military action would be dangerous and irresponsible, even though our professional armed forces would rise to the challenge. So why have the Government not made it clear that they would ban the fire strikes while our armed forces are engaged? No one in the House would seek to ban strikes except in the most exceptional circumstances, but does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that regrettably such circumstances are now upon us? Frankly, it would be bizarre if the Attorney-General did not think so. As for the eventual resolution of the dispute, surely the Government should now seek, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, to go beyond the FBU activists and back to the ordinary firefighters?
	Does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a silent majority of firefighters would reluctantly accept the current offer, so is it not time to insist that the FBU consult its members on the current offer by a secret postal ballot? Surely, it would be far better for the long-term health of our fire services if the Government pushed for a democratic end to the dispute rather than going down the route of imposing a settlement? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister realise that his strategy of imposing a settlement could end up prolonging the dispute and making matters worse? If emergency legislation is needed, should it not back ordinary firefighters' right to vote and stop the damage to the fire service and public safety by extremists among the FBU activists?

John Prescott: First, I appreciate some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but if there is a threat to public safety, as I have already explained, there is a person who is responsible for making that judgment and taking court action where necessary. As for whether I am going to impose a deal or, indeed, go for anti-strike legislation, banning strikes would be extremely controversial, so any legislation would take a long time to go through the House. I do not think that legislation that I might get in September or October would be helpful in this situation.
	As a ballot is under way, I do not want to aggravate the situation. I appeal directly to the firefighters not to leave this matter to the brigades' hands-up decisions in the mess room. We should not learn merely that an offer was opposed by 58 brigades without any information about the proportion of those who wanted to accept the deal and those who did not. A precedent has already been set, as the FBU had a ballot on 4 September. All I am saying is that it is proper, in view of the serious nature of the problem, for firemen to have the right to say whether they accept or reject an offer. That will be done in the next two or three weeks, and we can then see exactly what their judgment is.
	I have made it clear that this is not about whether we are going to provide any more money. Let me make it absolutely clear—there will not be another penny in the deal, as 16 per cent. is a generous offer. The firefighters need to be clear about that when they have their vote. It would be difficult to introduce legislation to enforce a ballot or indeed anti-strike legislation because of the time that it would take to get through the House—if, indeed, it got through the House—and that would not be helpful in the present situation. I have chosen to pursue this course of action, and I have used my judgment to determine the best way of balancing public safety against getting an agreement in those areas.

Harry Barnes: Why is my right hon. Friend being so intransigent on matters of legislation? A measure dealing with section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 has already gone through the House, and it is now proposed to introduce a new two-clause Bill on fire services. Would it not be more sensible if those matters were the subject of negotiations, as there could be some trade-off so that we could begin to reach a settlement? At the meetings that my right hon. Friend will hold with the FBU and the employers, it will not be possible to have any type of negotiation at all in the circumstances. It will merely be a matter of pontification from a certain position rather than an attempt at persuasion and discussion to reach a settlement that should be there to be grabbed by both sides.

John Prescott: Let me make it clear—I do not think that I am being intransigent at all in those negotiations, which have gone on for the best part of 12 months. Sometimes the truth is told, sometimes less than the truth.—for example, the reason why Members of Parliament got a 40 per cent. increase. No doubt my hon. Friend has contested with the firemen the kind of propaganda that was going around at the time. I hope that the two parties will come together. In the past 12 months, I have worked tremendously hard to get them to come together and talk. I have made it clear that it is for them to make the decision.
	It is only a day or so since the executive recommended that decision. There was a full recommendation to the conference to accept the deal, but it overturned it—I did not do so, it was the members themselves. However, if the decision is to be fair, why do they not subject it to a secret ballot as they did in September, so at least we get a full picture of who wants to accept the deal and who wants to move to further strike action, particularly against this background?
	I do not think for a moment that I am being intransigent. As for discussions, I made a statement in January. I am sure that the Opposition will ask why I did not introduce legislation then. I thought that it would inflame the situation, and wanted to work for an agreement—and we got it, and we got the executive to make a recommendation. I therefore think that my judgment was right, but now I am faced with the fact that the conference has rejected the offer and is going back to its members. I have said that a secret ballot is the best way of dealing with the matter.
	I have discussed with the trade union our White Paper and proposals on section 19, but it disagrees with me. Basically, I am implementing a recommendation made some time ago to give up my powers and allow decisions to be made at local level. That is basically a form of decentralisation—I have been considering it for a long time and I believe that it is right. I have had discussions on all those matters, but when one group says "no" and another "yes", one has to make a decision—I have made mine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just tell the Deputy Prime Minister that it is more helpful if he addresses the Chair? May I also appeal on the basis of that start, for shorter questions and answers.

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister would have taken this particular action without a great deal of thought, and it probably hurts him greatly to do it. How does the deal that is now on the table, which he is saying is generous and was recommended by the executive, differ from the deal that he vetoed after all-night conversations some weeks ago?

John Prescott: At that time, the FBU was proposing 16 per cent. over two years. Because it was not tied to modernisation, I had to make it clear that that would commit me to a payment of hundreds of millions of pounds. When the FBU made that decision, I had not even seen the agreement. The new deal is substantially different—it gives 16 per cent. over three years, but that has now been changed to two and a half years. The settlement is not as good as the FBU originally wanted, but I judge that the amount of taxpayers' money required to finance the deal for three years is acceptable. The deal is different from the earlier one, but it is fair to all parties and is generous, however it is measured.

Andy Reed: Like my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I have found in discussions with local firefighters that they would find a £25,000-a-year offer very reasonable. I have found them extremely sensible. However, will he reassure me that if the Bill is enacted, negotiations will continue and, if successful, he will not use the powers at all?

John Prescott: I certainly hope—and I believe that the whole House does—that the firefighters will accept the agreement, perhaps by ballot, which would get us out of all the difficulties. Let me make it clear to everybody that I will still continue with modernisation. I am committed to the modernisation of the fire service, along with a generous pay settlement. That is our commitment, I have set it out in letters, and it remains the case. I shall resort to proposals in the White Paper and future legislation to deal with the problem. Under different circumstances, we would not need a separate piece of legislation and we could get on with modernising the service while the firefighters are back at work, and have a settlement based on that generous offer.

Robert Key: My constituents in Wiltshire will be grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for taking this practical step forward. However, firefighters in Wiltshire face a double whammy. Not only do they face the prospect of a national ballot but they are currently engaged in another ballot forced on them by the FBU leadership on the question of joint control rooms. This time last week, I visited the £7 million joint control room, which the taxpayer has funded in Wiltshire. Would the Deputy Prime Minister's legislation affect that strike action if the ballot went that way?

John Prescott: The ballots under way at the moment are about pay negotiations and changes in the conditions associated with them. It is true that one of the proposals not tied to the agreement is about what we do about control rooms. I think that the case put in Wiltshire is right—I cannot see any reason why there should not be joint control rooms, which are part of the modernisation agenda that we have to face up to. The ballot is taking place by the normal method, there is a dispute at the local level—or in this case, the regional level—but normal circumstances apply.

John McDonnell: Does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister understand that his intervention today, like his intervention in November, will be seen as an act of provocation, preventing a settlement of the dispute? Can he give me a clear answer to the following question? If he imposes legislation and the FBU and the firefighters reject any offer and go on strike, will we return to the time when we jailed trade unionists for strike action?

John Prescott: That certainly is not involved; perhaps we should wait until the Bill is published. As for acts of provocation, my hon. Friend is constantly at it, day in, day out, on all sorts of issues. Where the Government do one thing, he wants to do the other. I must consider public safety, but that does not seem to concern him too much. I have to make balanced judgments about proper public safety, and consider fire threats, and, indeed, terrorist incidents. Those judgments are not easy, but Governments have to make them. The job would be a lot easier if my hon. Friend faced up to some of his responsibilities.

Crispin Blunt: The Government have known since at least September that a conflict in the Gulf was possible, if not probable, on the scale now demonstrated by the commitment of British forces to the region. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that, on reflection, he should have protected the interests of the armed forces rather more energetically since September?

John Prescott: The best that I can do now for the armed forces is to get a settlement to this dispute. That is my obligation, and since September we have spent a considerable time trying to achieve that. There have been fewer disputes than were predicted at the time, which was useful; I think that the House found that acceptable. Forty-eight hours ago, the executive recommended this deal. That was a step in the right direction, and I would like to see the armed forces doing the job that they are supposed to do. I am extremely grateful for the job that they have done. They have shown that public safety can be protected, and I know that I can trust them to do that. However, I will work tirelessly to bring this agreement to its conclusion. That is why I have come here today, and why I am proposing this legislation.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend says that he would prefer a secret ballot, and I understand that and agree with him. He also says that the FBU has suggested having a recall conference in two to three weeks' time. In practical terms, if the leadership continues to exercise leadership and conducts a secret ballot, is it realistic to expect a result within that time? Also, how long will it take to get the legislation through its various parliamentary stages?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes several serious points. A ballot that is conducted by a "hands up" of the brigade is obviously a lot quicker than an individual ballot; however, the circumstances are such that it would probably be necessary at least to enter into that practice. To be fair, the union did have a ballot last time. The turn out was 83 per cent., which, as people will recognise, was quite a high figure. Some 87 per cent. of those who voted voted to take strike action in rejecting the earlier deal. So there has been a ballot before, and I hope that the union will consider that point.
	The time that it takes for legislation to go through the House is a matter for negotiation between the various parties. I shall publish the Bill tomorrow, and we will probably have a discussion on how fast we can proceed with it. However, I doubt whether such legislation could be introduced before the three-week period. Consultation is probably taking place on the ballot, and hopefully, we can get some agreement.

Graham Brady: The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that it would be possible for industrial action to continue after a settlement has been imposed. Would it not be absurd for this House to put through emergency legislation when our troops are in a war situation, and still to have 19,000 of our armed forces tied up because of possible future fire disputes?

John Prescott: That is a fair point, but we have to make a judgment on how people will react in these circumstances. In my experience of strikes and legal actions—I have experienced a few in my time—threatening people with the courts does not guarantee their going back to work; if anything, it makes matters much more difficult. One is forced to fine the union concerned and to get into sequestration; however, that does not get people back to work. For example, it did not work with the seamen's union. I can only give my judgment, but at least it is based on experience. I have to find a balance, and I have set it out today.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend knows that many Labour Members will be opposed to the imposition of the settlement to this dispute. However, I welcome the fact that he is meeting the FBU and local authority employers this afternoon. If the FBU agrees to a ballot of its membership, will he, too, reconsider his position?

John Prescott: I understand and appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I shall make it clear to the union and to the employers that I believe that a secret ballot should take place, so that we can get a proper judgment. Of course, I readily accept that the timetable for that is likely to be a lot shorter than that for legislation going through this House. I recognise that we need to subject that legislation to proper scrutiny, and I doubt whether that can be achieved in just a week or a fortnight. So there will be a ballot beforehand, but my hon. Friend poses the problem: what if the union rejects the negotiations through the secret ballot? If that happens, I, and this House, will be faced with a difficult situation. I prefer to rely on the good judgment of the firefighters in accepting this generous offer.

Michael Weir: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that a Bill introduced in this House will not apply to Scotland, and that to apply such legislation to Scotland would require a Sewel motion or a separate Act of the Scottish Parliament? There is absolutely no chance of either getting through the Scottish Parliament.

John Prescott: The answer is yes, and thank goodness for that. [Interruption.]

Llew Smith: rose—

John Prescott: It is for the proper attention of the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Salmond: That is much better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had moved on. I call Mr. Llew Smith.

Llew Smith: I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the FBU is not responsible for the current situation: it is this Government and their friend George Bush who have declared war on Iraq. Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate the irony of the fact that the Government can find £1.75 billion to go to war, but cannot find the money to meet the settlement that was agreed between the employers and the trade union some months ago?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend must know that people throughout the country, be it pensioners or anyone else, claim a right to the money that may be used in the conflict. According to my calculation, some five or six times the amount of money that is expected to be spent on such action has already been committed in all areas. This is a question of fairness and judgment. Some local authority workers have settled for 4 per cent. from the same employers who will have to find this money. There are many such workers in my hon. Friend's constituency, and he should ask himself—as I am asked—whether it is fair to pay 16 per cent. to one set of workers and 4 per cent. to another. That is a difficult judgment, but I have given the best that I can and I think that it is right. I would welcome a little support from my hon. Friend.

Mark Francois: The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that he has sought another opinion from the Attorney-General on the use of existing legislation to make a further strike illegal, particularly in the current circumstances. The shadow Attorney-General established on a point of order last week that although "Erskine May" accepts the principle that advice to Ministers should be confidential, in "exceptional circumstances" the Minister asking for such advice can then make it available to the House, and thus to the public. The Prime Minister did this with the legal advice that he received from the Attorney-General about UN resolution 1441, so there is a clear precedent. The Prime Minister made that advice available to the House of Commons; now that we are at war, should not the Deputy Prime Minister follow that precedent?

John Prescott: We should first recognise that there is no strike at the moment, because it was withdrawn. That is the threat to public safety that the Attorney-General must take into account. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the advice given, and there has been some discussion in the House as to whether advice given by the Attorney-General to me—or, indeed, to anyone else—should be published. I keep the Attorney-General informed of the circumstances, and that is the role that he has explained to me. I do not ask for his advice on these matters; he makes a judgment. That remains the position, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursue the matter through the shadow Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General wants to publish the letters that he has written to me on this matter—[Interruption.] I am not asking for advice, because I am satisfied that the man with responsibility for this matter will act if there is a threat to public safety.

Adrian Bailey: May I say that I support the course of action taken by the Deputy Prime Minister? However, I am concerned about the way in which the ballot should be conducted, although I certainly support a ballot. Will it be conducted on the basis of the offer made by the FBU executive, will it be secret, and will the information contained within it be clear and unambiguous to avoid the potential for misrepresentation?

John Prescott: That would be the ideal situation, but I should tell my hon. Friend that there will not be a secret ballot as we understand it. A discussion takes place in the headquarters of the various brigades, and at the place of work, and there is a vote. A delegate then takes that vote, as mandated, to the conference. It is not mandated for 80 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the vote, with some form of proportional calculation being made; it is absolutely the vote of the brigade. On the last deal, which was very similar to this one, 100 per cent. of the 50 or so brigades voted against. That is why conducting this ballot in the same way seems a very difficult way of going about things. That is why I am appealing to the firefighters and saying, "You had a ballot before. This is substantially different from the 4 per cent. that you rejected. You should be entitled to have an individual, secret ballot. You did it before, and I suggest that it should be done again." I hope that they will accept that recommendation.

Angela Watkinson: There has been a significant shift in the concern of firefighters away from pay and towards terms and conditions of employment. It is a great pity that the pay review, the Bain report and the risk review all seem to have been lumped into one. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that, in 1974, there was a very large intake into the fire service and those firefighters are coming up for retirement. There is great concern that the present situation will be used as an opportunity for significant natural wastage. They are also concerned about the risk review lowering required response times and lowering the risk assessment of particular areas. Firefighters are, by their nature, deeply concerned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. If she has a question, she should put it immediately.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister take the opportunity to reassure firefighters about those matters and harness the good will that exists among them to bring the dispute to a speedy resolution?

John Prescott: The hon. Lady asks an informed question about the present difficulties. It is true that the issue is not so much the money as the conditions and modernisation that go with it. We have insisted that modernisation goes with those wages. An awful lot of propaganda is being put out about what the deal means. Already pamphlets are being rushed out claiming that thousands of people will be made redundant and hundreds of fire stations closed. That is just not true. The new risk-based fire system would prevent that. It would mean not that there would not be fewer jobs than before—there are 2,500 fewer firefighters than there were 10 years ago. That is a matter of adjustment and change. There are fewer fire stations. Only a few months ago, two in Yorkshire closed down and were replaced by one modern fire station. Those things go on through proper negotiations. All I say to the firefighters is, "Sit down and negotiate—we have provided the framework—and introduce an intelligent change to work practices, to move to a risk-based system, and at the same time improve your conditions." We believe that improved public safety will also come from these proposals.

Vernon Coaker: I met firefighters from Nottinghamshire last week in Parliament. One thing that they were worried about was the possibility that local management would impose changes upon them. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, in the new deal that was offered and which the executive accepted, there were further safeguards in terms of local consultation so that local firefighters could be involved in the process of change?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for asking the question, as I share that concern. My experience of working on ships as a seaman is that captains can make a difference. A good one can have good relationships; a lousy one can have lousy relationships with the same crew. The same is true of the chief constable or the chief at the fire station. There is a genuine fear among fire people that the chief will be given absolute power and impose a settlement, like a Captain Bligh in our stations. They are using that as a justification, as though some fire masters were not responsible in these matters. We have tried to find the words to deal with that perception and fear of such action. The agreement that the executive recommended allowed that. There can be a proper balance that allows firefighters to say, "This new deal will give me a fair say about my working conditions." That is what it is designed to do, and they should be able to accept it.

Bill Tynan: The whole House will understand the frustration of my right hon. Friend. There is a meeting this afternoon. If the Fire Brigades Union agrees that there will be no strike action and that it will put the offer to a ballot of its members, does he accept that that would be the best way forward? If not, poisoning the well by imposing a settlement could create enormous problems for all parties in the dispute.

John Prescott: I have no doubt that that is the danger that faces us if we get the balance of judgment wrong. That balance of judgment is at the heart of our efforts. As I said, I will meet the Fire Brigades Union this afternoon. Over the period of negotiations, the union has co-operated in withdrawing the threat of strikes before, which I welcome. That is how we have tried to go forward to a successful conclusion, but so far failed. If the union says now—there are some signs that it will, but the trouble is that it is all in statements to the press, which we cannot rely on—that it will not have a strike during the ballot, that will be helpful and will allow me to tell the Army that the troops can be stood down. That is a fair balance. I hope that the union will come to that decision and give it to me this afternoon.

Business of the House

Ben Bradshaw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 24 March—Second Reading of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 25 March—Remaining stages of the Extradition Bill.
	Wednesday 26 March—Progress on remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 27 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Friday 28 March—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 31 March—Second Reading of Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 1 April—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Title to be confirmed.
	Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
	Wednesday 2 April—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (Day 1).
	Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
	Thursday 3 April—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
	Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
	Friday 4 April—Private Members' Bills.
	May I repeat the tribute that I made during Monday's brief business statement to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for his outstanding contribution as Leader of the House? He enjoyed the respect and affection of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and his weekly jousts with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were, for many of us, the highlight of the parliamentary week. They will be sorely missed.

Eric Forth: How can I not thank the deputy Leader of the House for giving us that statement? I echo his sentiments about the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was that increasingly rare phenomenon, a parliamentarian. He understood and loved the Chamber, and brought to it wit and knowledge of a kind that is all too rarely in evidence. He was also principled. In his resignation, which we regret, he showed that principled resignations still have a part to play in politics today. For that, as much as anything else, we will all remember him. Although I disagreed with much of what the right hon. Gentleman did in terms of his modernisation, I can honestly say that I do not envy whoever will be chosen to follow in his footsteps.
	I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State for Defence made in the House today, and I welcome even more his undertaking that he would keep the House properly and regularly informed about the hostilities. I hope that we will also be kept informed appropriately about post-war reconstruction and aid. May I ask for a similar undertaking that we will be kept informed about homeland security? I am sure that what may happen here in our own country during and after hostilities is as much on hon. Members' minds as the hostilities themselves. I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will give us an undertaking that we will be kept fully and properly informed on that front, as well as on the other.
	I should also like the hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking, although I suspect that this is wishful thinking on my part, that we will not see the regrettable phenomenon of bad news being slipped out under the cover of the hostilities—other than the Budget, of course.
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was granted an urgent question by Mr. Speaker. She said that she would
	"ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement in response to the Select Committee on International Development's report on humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq"—[Official Report, 19 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 941.]
	Mr. Speaker granted that urgent question, which was addressed specifically to the Secretary of State or to the Department for International Development. You can imagine our surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the junior Minister in the Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who was in her place on the Front Bench, did not reply on behalf of the Department. Instead, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—a Minister from another Department altogether—took it upon himself to answer. First, he mumbled some sort of excuse about the Secretary of State being out of the country—for which I do not particularly blame her, at this time. He then went on to claim that the hon. Member for Northampton, North had lost her voice. I am reliably informed, however, that she was perfectly capable of speaking soon after she left the Chamber.
	The urgent question, with its specific reference to a Department and a Select Committee report, having been granted, the Government casually shuffled the people on the Front Bench around. The result was that the Minister from the Department for International Development had to brief the Minister who had been drafted in continually throughout his answering of the question, and, sadly, we therefore got inadequate answers from the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I want an undertaking from the deputy Leader of the House that this will not happen again. When an urgent question is granted, we want proper answers from the proper Minister from the right Department.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful for the kind remarks of the shadow Leader of the House about my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I agree with what he said about the way in which my right hon. Friend left the Government. I think that he did it very well, although I—like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—do not share his reasons for doing it.
	I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reason that the Secretary of State for International Development was not here yesterday—which he and his colleagues well knew when they tabled their urgent question—was that she was on her way to the United States to hold discussions at the United Nations and with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the US Administration on an important issue about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are very concerned. I also remind him that, under the Government in which he served, a Department for International Development did not exist. It was part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The two Departments in this Government quite rightly work extremely closely together, and the Secretary of State for International Development has secured a doubling of her Department's budget. I am sure that when she has concluded her discussions across the Atlantic, she will wish to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.
	It is entirely a matter for the Government which Minister responds to an urgent question, as Mr. Speaker himself made clear when the matter was raised yesterday. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) had just returned from the United States, having held discussions there on these very matters, it seemed perfectly appropriate that he should respond to the urgent question.
	I assure the shadow Leader of the House that there will be regular updates on the important issue of homeland security. I believe that the Home Secretary has made a written statement on this matter today, and I am sure that he will come to the House when he feels it necessary to update such statements. They will be regularly updated as the crisis unfolds.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a point about bad news coming out at this time. It is a fact that, at times like this, when people's attention is on other things, they will not take so much notice of what is happening elsewhere. The same applies to very good news, such as the fact that the unemployment rate in this country continues to fall, and that yesterday's figures show the highest employment levels since records began.

Paul Tyler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept my apology in advance—and my assurance that this is nothing personal—for saying that we certainly do not welcome his presence at the Dispatch Box today, for two very good reasons? First, while we fully appreciate the entirely honourable, principled and logical reasons for the resignation of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as Leader of the House, we very much regret that he no longer holds that position. We do so for good reasons. His commitment to the House and to Parliament was unrivalled, and it set a very good example for his successors. He stated in the House on many occasions that good government required good parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that we can therefore have an early statement from the Government on whether they maintain the principle that the Government's submission to parliamentary authority has to go before all else, and that that is what gives them their authority.
	It appears that there will be a hiatus before we shall have the opportunity of seeing whom the Government propose as the new Leader of the House. May we take that opportunity to have a debate on the role and responsibility of the Leader of the House? It is a different role from that of any other Cabinet Minister. It involves a responsibility to his or her colleagues in Cabinet, but also a responsibility to the House. Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to reiterate their commitment—as the right hon. Member for Livingston frequently did—to parliamentary sovereignty.
	The second reason that I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary is at the Dispatch Box is that it suggests that the Government are in no hurry to appoint a successor. That is extraordinary. Can the House imagine any other circumstances in which it would take 72 hours to appoint a Cabinet Minister? No other Department of State could remain leaderless for that long. That is indicative of the respect that the Government have for the House. Finally, may I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I, too, will very much miss the hour of the Cook's tour on a Thursday afternoon?

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, which he just about managed to deliver with a straight face. I am sorry that he does not welcome my appearance at the Dispatch Box. I do not welcome it either. This is not a job—albeit a temporary one—that I would have chosen. May I reassure him, however, that whoever is chosen to replace my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston will show an equal commitment to Parliament. What the hon. Gentleman said about that was absolutely right.
	The Government have proved, by their recent example, that they take parliamentary scrutiny seriously. We have become the first Government in the history of this country, for example, to do what the Liberal Democrats have been demanding for months—namely, to have a vote on a substantive motion before British forces were deployed in military action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. I remind him that the Liberal Democrats, and some Labour Members, constantly suggested that that would not happen, and constantly questioned the Government's commitment to coming to the House on that issue. We have done so not only by making regular statements, but by allowing that unprecedented vote.
	I also challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the failure to find a replacement for my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston yet is a sign of the Government not taking this position seriously. I suggest that the Prime Minister has rather more pressing things on his mind at the moment.

Dave Watts: Will my hon. Friend try to find time for the House to discuss the accountability of primary care trusts? The trust in Liverpool has kept a severely disabled young man in hospital for more than six weeks, and there does not appear to be any pressure that a Member of Parliament can put on that trust. I believe that that would be a subject worthy of discussion by the House.

Ben Bradshaw: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says and grateful to him for drawing the case in his constituency to our attention. He will be aware that the Government are keen on improving public and democratic accountability as we progress our health reforms, and I will ensure that he gets a substantive response from the Secretary of State for Health to the point that he has raised.

George Young: With the resignation of the Leader of the House, whose departure I also mourn, would this be the right time to revisit the question of whether the Modernisation Committee should be chaired by a member of the Cabinet? Would it not be better if the ex-Leader of the House stayed on the Committee as a Back Bencher, so that it was more like our other Select Committees?

Ben Bradshaw: As I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Committee itself. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston remains in his position as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee at the moment, but his future on the Committee, and its chairmanship—or chairwomanship—will be a matter for the Committee.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend will know of the statement made earlier by the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of a future statement regarding compensation payments to the partners of those who might lose their lives in Iraq. May I suggest that, in view of the current conflict, this would be an appropriate time for the House to debate the much wider issue of the whole series of policies, benefits, payments and regulations that apply to the families of those who have served in the armed forces? I draw my hon. Friend's attention particularly to war disability pensions, the poorest war disability pensioners and the earnings disregard, which has not been uprated since 1990. Could he find time in the near future for a complete review of Government policy, and for an opportunity to debate the issue?

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that, given all the other pressing demands on the House, I cannot promise that we shall have time for a full debate on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend, important though they are. However, I am sure that every hon. Member agrees that those issues should be uppermost in our minds, particularly at a time when our armed services—men and women—are likely to be going into action on our behalf.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomed the Ministry of Defence's announcement today that benefits previously restricted to the spouses of those involved in potential military action will be extended to partners.

John Bercow: The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is certainly one of the most pungent, quick-witted and effective parliamentarians of our time, and his departure from the Government's ranks will be as widely regretted as it is widely respected.
	Prostate cancer awareness week begins next Monday, so may we have an urgent debate on prostate cancer? Although 21,000 people a year are diagnosed as suffering from it and 10,000 a year die of it, the Government have so far failed to honour their promise to launch a public information campaign.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a serious health issue affecting men, which the Government do take seriously. We may not be able to afford the time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it might be an ideal subject on which to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

David Hamilton: Earlier today we heard a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, who kindly passed the issue of the House's sitting hours on to my hon. Friend's agenda. Like many other Members, I have taken a hard line on our responsibilities as Members. I expect statements to be made in the House and not outside, and expect us, as MPs who made the decision to go to war, to be the first to hear what happens. Will my hon. Friend review our sitting hours over the impending period? I believe that we should sit from Monday to Friday, and should sit for the hours that are required.

Ben Bradshaw: Both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Government as a whole have made it clear that, over the next few weeks, we shall be living in extraordinary times. We have made clear our willingness to be flexible on sitting hours. I am not convinced that any change need be set in stone, but we are prepared to come to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State has today—and will again, I expect, in days to come. If it becomes necessary for us to sit in the evenings, at weekends and during the Easter recess the Government will take account of the position, which will depend on events on the ground.

Andrew MacKay: We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's assurance that Ministers will make regular statements as the war progresses, but may I put it to him gently that we must avoid a repetition of yesterday's farce? In future, Ministers from the appropriate Department must appear at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman's response to the shadow Leader of the House was not up to the standards that we normally expect of him.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I will not reiterate the reasons for the absence of the Secretary of State for International Development—reasons that the Opposition knew very well when they tabled their urgent question. As I said, it is for the Government to decide who should answer urgent questions, and it was felt that as the Minister who did answer had been most recently involved in discussions with the bodies involved, it was appropriate for him to do so. I think that, since the Government came to office in 1997, there has been only one other occasion on which a statement has not been made by the most obviously appropriate Minister. We try to avoid such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this Government have a far better record than their predecessor on the number of statements made in the House.

Vernon Coaker: Following the publication of the White Paper on tackling antisocial behaviour, will my hon. Friend try to find out when the Government will publish their antisocial behaviour Bill? Will he give a commitment that when it is published we shall debate its Second Reading on the Floor of the House as soon as possible? Notwithstanding the war, which is obviously the most serious issue facing our country, many of my constituents want the action proposed in the White Paper to become law as early as possible.

Ben Bradshaw: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. No doubt he, like many of my colleagues, receives regular representations from his constituents. As people note the improvements being made in public services such as health and education, their main concerns are antisocial behaviour and crime. That is why the Government are legislating to deal with those problems. As soon as the Bill is ready it will be published and will, I am sure, be debated at some length on the Floor of the House.

Roy Beggs: I too am sorry that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is no longer Leader of the House. On at least two occasions, I have raised the fact that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee has not met in Northern Ireland once since its formation. That does not apply to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. Now that the former Leader of the House is no longer with us, I do not want the issue to be forgotten. May I have an assurance that it will not be forgotten, that it will be addressed, and that if a decision is made one way or the other, it will be made in this Chamber?

Ben Bradshaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being relatively unsighted on this subject. I am led to believe, however, that the Government have always been open to his suggestion, and that it has been resisted by his own party.

Roy Beggs: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Miller.

Andrew Miller: May I return to the answer that my hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton)? In the interests of the staff who work for us and serve the House—some of whom currently face extraordinary difficulties in connection with security, for example—will my hon. Friend ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to establish proper contingency plans in case we have to sit at weekends, and perhaps during the Easter recess, while hostilities are in progress?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. I should emphasise that we have no plans at this stage for the House to sit through the Easter recess or at weekends, apart from our decision that the House should sit on the first couple of days of the recess to debate the Budget. But I think that most Members would wish us to maintain an element of flexibility, while balancing that with the need—rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend—for not just Members but the staff who serve us so well to be able to plan their lives.

Andrew Mitchell: In contrast to the uncharacteristically churlish welcome given to the hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), may I say how pleased we Conservatives are to see him in his place today? It is good to see a fellow cyclist getting on.
	May I give the strongest possible endorsement to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the Modernisation Committee chairmanship? As a member of the Committee, I welcomed what I think was the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Executive would not interfere with the actions of the Committee if we, as its members, wanted the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to continue as its Chairman.

Ben Bradshaw: I think that that is absolutely right. As I said earlier, it is a matter for the Committee.
	I was not particularly upset by the churlishness of the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I know that he did not really mean it. Perhaps he is feeling a little uneasy about the position taken by the Liberal Democrats on some major matters of state in recent days and weeks. I hope that, like me, he welcomes the excellent new facilities on the premises for the locking of bicycles. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr. Speaker for his help in that regard.

Llew Smith: Will the deputy Leader of the House find time to debate the plight of Mordecai Vanunu, who has been rotting away in an Israeli jail for the past 18 years and has been in solitary confinement for 15 of them because—as the deputy Leader of the House will recognise—he told the truth about Israel's nuclear role when all around him were lying? If the Minister agreed to such a debate, the Government could reiterate their opposition to weapons of mass destruction and inform the House of what they are doing to ensure that Vanunu receives an early release.

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that we will be able to find time to have a debate on the Vanunu case on the Floor of the House, but I am well aware of the issue, having been the Minister responsible for that part of the world for a year before taking my current post. The case concerns the Government greatly and I have personally raised it with the Israeli authorities. However, it is important to draw a distinction between that case and the action that the coalition is now taking in Iraq, which is unique in the world in being in contravention of chapter VII resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction and in having used them against its neighbours and its own people.

Alex Salmond: I too wish to pay tribute to the qualities of the former Leader of the House, although I should point out to some hon. Members that he is not dead—thankfully—and that we will continue to enjoy his contributions on a range of issues for many years to come. I am sure that Government Front Benchers in particular are looking forward to that. I would support permanency of tenure for the acting Leader of the House, if it were up to me, but will he continue with the Government's valuable consultation on public participation in the political process? Outside the House, today and yesterday, and in Manchester and Edinburgh yesterday, we have seen inspiring examples of young people's interest in politics. The fact that they are demonstrating against the Government rather than for it is the Government's misfortune, but the more important point is that so many young people are concerned about the conduct of their country and the state of the world. Will the acting Leader of the House consult the young people outside to find out what has inspired them to join in the political process?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not sure that that endorsement from the hon. Gentleman will stand me in good stead, but I am grateful for it nonetheless. Unusually, I agree with him on this point. My constituency offices in Exeter were invaded by a group of school pupils and college students yesterday. They staged a peaceful protest, and I spoke to one of them on the phone and offered to go and talk to them as a group—as I spend much time doing in my constituency. I was pleased that young people feel strongly enough on such issues to seek out their elected representative. I have one caveat, however, which is that I hope that they are not neglecting their studies. As long as young people are protesting peacefully—in a way that we cherish in this country but would not be possible in Iraq, as they will be aware—I welcome that, but I hope that they do it outside school hours.

Ian Davidson: Given the intense warmth of our present relationship with France, is the Minister aware that some people would like to have a debate and, indeed, an immediate referendum on the euro? Does he agree that that would be opportunist and unprincipled, just as it would be for a referendum to be held—as some have suggested—on the back of what we hope will be a successful war?

Ben Bradshaw: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's antipathy to UK membership of the euro at this stage. I can reassure him that whatever has happened in recent days and weeks to our relationship with our French friends, and what may happen after what we hope will be a successful outcome to the military campaign, the Government's decision on whether to recommend a referendum on the euro will always be based on our economic interest and the five tests.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the curious case of Mr. Andrew Murray, a former worker for the Soviet Novosti news agency, currently a member of the Communist party of Britain—it still exists, believe it or not—and an avowed supporter of nuclear North Korea, who has promised, in a report to the Communist party of Britain, that next weekend's great anti-war demonstration will have two slogans: not just "stop the war" but also "Blair must go"? Curiously, Mr. Murray is able to make that promise because he, of all men, is the chair of the Stop the War Coalition, which organises the huge demonstrations to which so many people, perhaps unwittingly, subscribe.

Ben Bradshaw: Those of us who have taken part in demonstrations or been involved in protest organisations—and, yes, even I have—will have sometimes had strange bedfellows. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary, and those who are involved in the anti-war movement—most of them for good reasons—will be very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has told the House.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I break with precedent and ask the acting Leader of the House a question on the business information that he has actually given us? I am disturbed to see that on Thursday 3 April it is the Government's intention to hold the Easter Adjournment debate and also to consider Lords amendments, on a day that already suffers from reduced hours. Any Adjournment debate is valued by Back Benchers, and I ask him to consider having only the Adjournment debate on that day.

Ben Bradshaw: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it has been traditional for the Easter Adjournment debate to run for three hours. It was only when I did it the time before last that it went on for what seemed like 12 hours, although it was not quite that long. We want to protect the time for the Easter Adjournment debate and the hon. Gentleman should not assume that we will spend as much time as he thinks considering the Lords amendments.

Richard Younger-Ross: Having the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) acting as the Leader of the House is a positive advantage, because I am able to read, through the columns of the excellent Express & Echo and Western Morning News—papers that we share—his views on modernisation of the House. Does the acting deputy Leader agree—[Hon. Members: "Acting Leader."] Indeed, I mean the acting Leader of the House. Does he agree that the jeers and "hear, hears" in this House are viewed dimly by the public, and that the polite applause given to his former boss, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on Monday night is a better way for the House to show its views?

Ben Bradshaw: As the shadow Leader of the House made clear, opinions on that point differ strongly. I have some sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says, because sometimes hon. Members do not give enough consideration to how our behaviour affects people's views of Parliament. Certainly when I talk to young people in my constituency, they tell me that they find some of our customs and procedures rather strange. I am not a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I understand that it is investigating the matter.

Mark Francois: Can we find time for an early debate on the competence of this Government? I acknowledge the principled resignation from the Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—and we must respect that—but what happened yesterday was farcical. It would have been one thing if a Foreign Office Minister had replied to an urgent question on international development because no Minister from DFID was available. The House could have understood and accepted that. However, a Minister from the Department for International Development was available and she sat on the Front Bench throughout, but was not allowed to say anything. Furthermore, is not the Secretary of State for International Development now the living embodiment of Churchill's dictum—that the problem with committing political suicide is that one lives to regret it?

Ben Bradshaw: No; the Secretary of State for International Development made her position clear in the statement that she issued on Monday. To be fair to her—and I hope that hon. Members will be—the situation changed after the interview that she gave to the BBC. The President of France said that he would veto any ultimatum given to the Iraqi regime, agreement was reached on the administration of a post-Saddam Iraq, which is something that my right hon. Friend takes very seriously, and—even more importantly—the road map was published for a middle east peace process. People should be allowed to change their minds in the light of events. That is the sign of a mature democracy and hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome it.

Graham Brady: May I welcome the Deputy Leader's assurance that the Home Secretary will come to the House to make a statement on homeland security? I urge that that should happen as soon as possible at the start of next week. The statement should take account of all the measures that have been taken—or should have been taken—by the relevant Departments. They include, in particular, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Department for Transport.

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot guarantee that such a statement will be possible early next week, as other Ministers may need to make more pressing statements. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued today a comprehensive written statement on the subject. I notice that Home Office questions will be held on Monday, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members interested in the subject will be in the Chamber to put questions to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that it might interest the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) to know that, with regard to the earlier request from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), there is a debate scheduled for next week on prostate cancer. That may be one of the most remarkable cases ever of instant gratification.

Points of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I received today Mr. Speaker's reply in respect of the publication of the legal basis for the war with Iraq. The Deputy Prime Minister made another statement, from which two connected matters arise. One of those matters was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Both points clearly fit with the advice that I received today from Mr. Speaker, which is based on the contents of page 359 of "Erskine May".
	Another procedural matter, however, arises in connection with the role of the Attorney-General, who is not a Member of this House. It has to do with whether he intends to take out an injunction to restrain the anticipated breach of the law as set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. If the Attorney-General wished, he could make a statement on the matter in another place, with the Solicitor-General concurring in this House. Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that that procedure should be followed, as has happened before?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter has certainly been aired today. I think that the advice already given to the hon. Gentleman is that, if the Attorney-General gives advice to the Government, it is at the Government's discretion as to whether that advice is shared more widely.

Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it was remiss of me not to welcome the acting Leader of the House to his place today, will he take this opportunity to correct something that arose because he was incorrectly prompted? I assure him that I have spoken with the full authority of my party on every occasion the issue of having the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meet in Northern Ireland has come up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule, but the Minister will have heard what has been said.

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted that the Carriage Gates entrance to the House of Commons has been closed for a number of hours, owing to the demonstration outside. That is a clear breach of the Sessional Orders, which the House passes at the beginning of each Session. I appreciate that the police and security officers have a difficult job, but demonstrations will clearly take place for many weeks and months, as the war continues in Iraq. It is essential that right of access be maintained. Will you and Mr. Speaker gain assurances from the police that the Sessional Orders will be maintained?

Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right to interpret the Sessional Orders as a means of guaranteeing the liberties of Parliament? Associated with those liberties would be the liberties of the people—which include the right to free demonstration without the intervention and interference of some misguided right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In relation to the latter point, the maintenance of public order is a matter that should concern everyone. Mr. Speaker takes it very seriously, and I understand that there is contact at the present time between the Serjeant at Arms and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. However, I have received information since I have been in the Chair that the Carriage Gates are now open again. Therefore the tag currently running on the monitors may not be up to date, any more than its original spelling was correct. Orders of the Day

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill combines action on two key environmental objectives—climate change reduction, and the need to move to a more sustainable management of our waste. There are strong links between the two challenges, as the poor use of resources which leads to ever increasing amounts of waste, and the poor management of that waste, all increase the production of greenhouse gases.
	The Bill approaches these challenges through the use of economic instruments. It will stimulate reductions in the emission of pollutants and make us less reliant on landfill, in the most economically efficient way. It will support the world's very first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme through a system of statutory penalties. It will also set up a landfill allowance trading scheme—probably the first scheme of this type to address waste in Europe, and possibly the first in the world.
	These are large claims for a Bill of only 38 clauses, and I am sure that many hon. Members would like to have before them a Bill that covered all aspects of climate change and waste management. However, this Bill is only part of what the Government are doing, and will be doing. To tackle greenhouse gases, the UK published its climate change programme in 2000. That programme set out a far-reaching strategy for reducing emissions across all sectors of the economy and for adapting to the effects of climate change that are happening already.
	For waste, our starting point is Waste Strategy 2000, which tackles the management of all waste streams. For the municipal waste stream, our starting point is the strategy unit report entitled "Waste Not, Want Not", to which we will be responding very shortly. I would be the first to say that the Bill is only part of a much bigger picture, but it is an important and innovative part.
	The Bill allows trading to be used to meet environmental goals. For landfill, local authorities will receive landfill allowances, which represent the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste that they may landfill. Those allowances will reduce year on year.

Bill O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on his opening remarks. I appreciate the opportunity. On the question of allowances and payments to local authorities—especially the disposal authorities—will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all the costs involved will be met? Local authorities will encounter extra problems with the collection and recycling of waste, and disposal will also be an important part of their work. Will he ensure that council tax payers will face no extra costs as a result of this business?

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an important point. When it was raised in another place, the Government responded by moving a right of direction for disposal authorities to give to collection authorities. That will ensure that the form of delivery of what is collected will be in a manner agreeable to the disposal authorities, so as to maximise the opportunities for recycling. We think that that will resolve the problem. Equally, we have been in touch with the Local Government Association, and we remain willing to listen to what the local authorities say to us. The answer is that there should be no extra cost.

David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I will, but I have a lengthy speech and I am wondering how far I will get.

David Chaytor: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall be brief. He said that the Bill is only a small part of the Government's strategy to deal with the waste management crisis and respond to the threat of climate change. Does he see merit in establishing a trading system for non-biodegradable waste? Would that form part of future legislation?

Michael Meacher: We have not considered that. The landfill targets in the Bill—they are the ultimate driver behind the Bill and other legislation—are concerned exclusively with biodegradable municipal waste. That has been a serious problem for this country, which has one of the highest levels of landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste in the EU. I am not sure whether Greece's level is higher, but ours is extremely high. That is our prime target. That will be a difficult enough task because we inherited a rate of landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste of about 85 per cent. It is now below 80 per cent., but is still extremely high. Once we have secured that target and aligned our waste management strategy to meet our landfill targets—the primary concern of my right hon. Friend and me—we can look further. But it will be difficult enough to meet existing targets without extending them gratuitously.
	Trading is a flexible and cost-effective economic instrument that allows reductions—whether in the biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill or in emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—to be made where it is most cost-effective to do so. It is a market system to achieve environmental objectives. In both parts of the Bill, the holder of steadily reducing landfill allowances or emission targets has three choices. First, they may take direct action to reduce their landfill or emissions to their allowance or target level. Secondly, they may reduce below the target and sell or save the surplus. Thirdly, they may choose to exceed the target or allowance and purchase excess allowances that are needed from those who have made cuts and are willing to sell in this way.

Norman Baker: There is a fourth option as well: the holders can choose to incur a penalty. I do not say that flippantly. They may make the calculation that the cost of a permit—demand for which will be high—is such that it might be cheaper to incur a penalty from the allocating authority. Has the Minister considered that?

Michael Meacher: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I ought to update a statement I made earlier about Carriage Gates. Members should be advised that the gates are now closed again because of the security situation.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In a market system, between buyers and sellers, the price is set by the market. Depending on the demand for excess allowance, I would expect the price to be pitched at a level that acted either as a sufficient incentive or as a sufficient deterrent, whichever way one looks at it. I am prepared to consider his point if such a situation arises, but I doubt it.
	The required overall reductions are still met, whichever of the three options is adopted, but trading will provide flexibility by allowing additional reductions to be made where that is most cost-effective. In all cases, reductions will still be made over time. That is the key point. We will meet environmental objectives and our landfill targets systematically.

Joan Walley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although much of the Bill is good, as it is against landfill and is trying to reduce the amount of waste we put to landfill, there is a danger that we could be promoting incineration over other forms of dealing with waste? Will he look at introducing a binding cap on incineration in addition to the measures in the Bill on landfill?

Michael Meacher: We are not providing any incentives for incineration. As a result of the "Waste Not, Want Not" report of the strategy unit, the Government are looking at the wider health and social implications of different parts of the waste stream, including incineration. My hon. Friend's considerations will be assessed in the report. Obviously I cannot presume any conclusions that might come from the report. However, I see no reason why the Bill might encourage incineration. We are clear about the waste hierarchy, and incineration is only just above landfill.
	The first part of the Bill tackles the requirement in the landfill directive to reduce the United Kingdom's reliance on landfill. The United Kingdom currently landfills nearly 80 per cent. of biodegradable municipal waste. Landfill produces methane, a greenhouse gas that is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide; 25 per cent. of all UK emissions of methane come from landfill sites.
	As well as the implications for climate change, landfilling constitutes the loss of valuable resources that are locked up in the waste. Many of these resources, in our view, could be reused or recycled, or have the energy extracted from them.
	Landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, which is how we determine the relative environmental impact of different waste management options. At the top is waste minimisation; in other words, we should be reducing or minimising the amount of waste that we produce. Best of all is not to create the waste. That is not going to happen very often, although it can be incentivised more; we are keen to do that.
	Thereafter, we should reuse what would otherwise be waste, followed by recycling; the third is recovery through composting and energy recovery. At the bottom comes disposal or landfill. To tackle problems associated with landfill and to move from a reliance on it, the UK—along with our European partners—agreed the landfill directive in 1999. I want to make it clear that although it is difficult for the United Kingdom, we believe it to be the right legislation. This directive includes stringent targets to cut the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill.

Sue Doughty: The Minister refers to different options, but clause 17(3) in particular suggests that targets can be met by recycling, by composting and by energy from waste. Is not incineration sitting at the same level as recycling?

Michael Meacher: If the hon. Lady had been listening—I am sure she was—when I spelled out the waste hierarchy, she would have heard me say that, after minimisation, the next requirement is recovery and reuse. Of course, one of the options remains recovery of the energy from waste; that is better than burying it in the ground. But the Government have made it clear that the prime concerns are recovery, reuse, recycling and composting. We are clear about that, but we are not excluding the other option, which would still be better than landfill. However, we strongly prefer the first four.

Bill Wiggin: What would happen if a council were to compost its biodegradable municipal waste and then use it for landfill? How would that fit in with the quota?

Michael Meacher: It would not fit in at all well, because such waste would still be biodegradable municipal waste even if it had been composted. It would probably turn into a type of sludge that would have to go to landfill. That would tell against our landfill targets, so the Government are strongly against any such proposal.
	Within the United Kingdom, environmental protection is a devolved matter. It is therefore for each of the Administrations to put in place their policies for meeting the reductions in landfill required by the landfill directive. The Administrations have agreed to act together towards this common goal, and have agreed that this Bill should be considered in total and as a unity by this Parliament. That is helpful and will increase the effectiveness of the measures by widening the area for potential trading and by ensuring that the UK as a whole can meet the reductions required in the most cost-effective manner.
	The obligations on the UK under the landfill directive—even allowing for a four-year derogation that is open to us because of our heavy reliance on landfill— require a 25 per cent. cut in biodegradable municipal waste from that produced in 1995, a lower level than that of today, by 2010; a 50 per cent. cut by 2013 and a 65 per cent. cut by 2020. That is a huge challenge. As I repeatedly say, if we were to do nothing—the opposite of what we will do—and were to have business as usual, the amount going to landfill would probably double over that 20-year period. Instead, we have to reduce it by two thirds. That is a massive challenge, and the Bill is at the heart of meeting it.

Michael Weir: Something that concerns me slightly about the trading aspect of waste management is the fact that it is clear that one cannot trade across the target years that the Minister has just mentioned. Is there not a danger that some authorities will not take the issue seriously until they come up against the buffer of the target years? Might it not be better to have shorter periods so as to reduce the dependence on the three target years?

Michael Meacher: The target or trip points were laid down in the landfill directive and are not a matter for the UK to determine. We are making it clear to local authorities that they can trade across years, but that they cannot trade across target years. That might put the achievement of our targets at risk. We are making that clear, and we shall make it clear in guidance. It would not be possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests partly because of the directive and partly because the framework in which we have to meet it is laid down for us. It is not a matter for our discretion.
	Municipal waste is growing at 3 to 4 per cent. a year, with recycling increasing only at 1 per cent. a year. That is another indication of the challenge that faces us on the alternative to landfill. Therefore, we are still landfilling more biodegradable municipal waste than ever and, each year, we are getting further from achieving our legally binding targets. I make no attempt to hide the seriousness of the challenge that we face.
	The landfill directive targets and, therefore, the Bill concentrate on the biodegradable municipal waste that is the direct concern of local government. Biodegradable waste represents about 63 per cent. of all municipal waste and is a cause for concern due its very nature. Methane is produced as a by-product of both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition, which means that the waste rots either with or without the presence of oxygen. This branch of the waste stream includes paper and cardboard, food and garden waste and natural textiles. That forms a very large proportion of the household waste stream. The aim of our sustainable waste management policies is to move these wastes up the waste hierarchy and towards their reduction, reuse, recycling or recovery and away from simply dumping them in landfills.
	We recognise the scale of the challenge and the large investment in alternatives to landfill that are required. The changes in the way in which we manage our waste create obligations on us all as producers of waste. We all continue to create waste. However, as the targets relate to municipal waste under the directive, we have to look to those who manage and control this waste—that is, the local authorities—to achieve compliance. That is why the landfill allowances relate to local authorities—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised—and specifically to the waste disposal authorities that dispose of the waste to landfill.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend is talking a great deal about the responsibilities of local authorities, and we all appreciate them. The position is getting more complicated by the moment and local authorities have more to do. Does he agree that if they were to have a statutory responsibility to develop a waste strategy, that would help them to manage all their new responsibilities and the complexities that exist in dealing with waste?

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a point that is directly relevant to her Municipal Waste Recycling Bill which received its Second Reading last Thursday. [Hon. Members: "Friday."] I beg the House's pardon. My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that the issue arose in another place and that an amendment to the Bill was accepted that requires local authorities to set out statutorily their waste management strategies. That is the basis on which the Bill comes before the House. In the light of the fact that the Government opposed the amendment but lost in another place, we are reconsidering the issue. We shall return to the House with our conclusions. I am very much aware that this point applies to my hon. Friend's Bill.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend has been characteristically generous in giving way. Perhaps we will discuss the Bill in interventions, so that we will not need much of a debate later. Surely, we must put the onus on to local authorities. However, as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said in relation to her Bill, the onus must also be placed on the individual. We cannot beat about the bush. We must make it clear that local authorities must charge according to the amount of waste produced by individual households. People will then start to learn that they must recycle, not just for some sort of spiritual reason but out of sheer economic necessity. Should we not move towards such an approach?

Michael Meacher: The strategy unit's report "Waste Not, Want Not" recommended that the Government consider the proposal that my hon. Friend mentioned. Contrary to what many people think, the system sometimes known as variable charging does not constitute a double whammy in the council tax. It is not an addition to the element in the council that is chargeable for waste collection, but replaces it. As he said, it depends on the amount of waste that a household generates. I entirely understand his point about the need to incentivise people to try to create less waste. The Government are considering the issue in their response to the strategy unit report. We will give our formal response to all the elements in the report quite soon.

Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher: I will give way, but I wonder whether anyone will have time to make a speech.

Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has referred to the amendment made in another place. Composting has an important place in our strategy, so will he carefully consider that amendment and examine carefully the advice given by bodies, such as the Composting Association, so that we ensure that composting takes place and is not prevented?

Michael Meacher: Composting is unquestionably very important, and the Government are very keen to promote composting of a high standard. However, clause 22, which deals with the definition of composting, was introduced in another place and, again, it was carried although the Government opposed it. I am advised that it includes requirements for the treatment of waste containing animal products into compost that would, in practice, turn the compost into sludge and render it useless as compost. We will obviously take account of what my hon. Friend has said and consider the issue further, but we must be extremely careful to retain a definition of compost that makes sense and, at the end of the process, does not simply lead to more biodegradable waste going to landfill.
	Those hon. Members who have followed the issue closely will know that we proposed a permit system when we consulted. I do not wish to deceive anyone, so I should say that we have changed that term to "allowances" for legal clarity because landfill sites are also subject to pollution prevention and control permits, and we have therefore decided to use another term.
	Part 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to specify the maximum amounts of biodegradable waste that can be sent to landfill sites in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom. She must do so after consulting their Administrations, and that must be done for each target year in the landfill directive. For the interim non-target years, she may set limits in each country, or a default formula can be used. The default would ensure an even profile of reduction, thus helping the UK to meet the targets.
	After that initial division, responsibility for setting up and operating an allowance scheme rests with each country, obviously because environmental policy is a devolved matter. So the purpose of the Bill is to set the framework, with the detail being decided by each country. Each country will have the flexibility to produce its own scheme and details will be set in regulations. Each country will also have to decide whether to permit trading in its area. Those countries that decide to allow trading could then become part of a cross-border scheme. I can confirm that England intends to introduce a trading scheme and would be prepared to take part in cross-border trading if others wished to do so.
	As the Bill provides flexibility for the detail of the trading scheme, it could be somewhat different in each country within the broad legal framework. For example, some Administrations may decide that allowances can be borrowed over years—others will not—but no country can allow such borrowing across target years, as that would put at risk the UK targets. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised that issue a little while ago.
	There will be an absolute duty on each waste disposal authority not to exceed the allowances that it holds irrespective of whether they were acquired by direct allocation or as a result of trading, banking or borrowing. However, local authorities will not be obliged to trade; they may simply landfill within their allotted allocation. Equally, there will be no requirement to trade for a monetary value—a simple transfer is permitted.
	As trading under the landfill allowances scheme would involve public bodies and there is no intention for that to become a speculative market, the Bill will not allow third parties to hold or trade allowances for a number of reasons. We want to provide opportunities for local authorities to trade any surplus. The targets are already very challenging for the UK, so we do not want allowances removed from the system. We do not want waste companies to purchase allowances and to use them, for example, to determine the procurement of local authority waste contracts.
	Each waste disposal authority will receive an allowance, which is the maximum amount of biodegradable waste that it can landfill in a year. The intention in England is to allocate allowances for each year from 2016 to 2020. Local authorities can then plan their progressive diversion from landfill. However, we recognise that the position can change over 16 years, because we make better progress towards meeting the directive targets than we envisage at present, so the Bill contains a provision to revise the allocations if that proves necessary or helpful.
	If a waste disposal authority landfills more biodegradable municipal waste than the allowances it holds, it will be liable to civil financial penalty. The penalties will be set at a sufficient level to ensure that the local authority has the incentive to divert from landfill or acquire allowances, rather than breach the limits. That is obviously essential to secure the landfill directive targets and to underpin an effective trading market.
	The landfill allowance schemes will be monitored by the monitoring authorities appointed for each country, and we expect those to be the respective environmental regulators. That will minimise the burden on landfill operators because the environmental regulators are already responsible—I understand that, in Northern Ireland, they soon will be—for regulating landfills and collecting information from their operators and local authorities. Where trading is permitted, it is intended that the monitoring authorities will also be responsible for recording each trading transfer on a central register.
	The aim, however, is to encourage local authorities to meet their targets in a sensible and co-ordinated way, not to take away resources without justification. Obviously, we do not wish to do that. That is why there is provision for the allocating authorities to extend the time for paying or to relieve liability to penalties if, for example, the local authority that has breached its allowances has a strategy in place to bring itself back on track.
	The importance of the target years is recognised by the provision for supplementary penalties in those years where a local authority landfilling more than it is permitted could lead to the UK breaching its legal obligations under the landfill directive, possibly becoming subject to a European Court of Justice fine. That reflects the seriousness with which we take our international obligations and—let me be frank—the possible penalties of up to £180 million a year for breaching the directive targets.
	The constituent countries of the UK will be responsible for meeting their share of the UK targets and for any associated financial costs or penalties by means of a concordat. There will also be criminal offences for landfill operators who fail to comply with the requirements of regulations, and there may be offences for a breach of scheme regulations, such as restrictions on banking or borrowing. There are also penalties in relation to the details of the scheme, such as record keeping or the rules for saving allowances.
	In another place, concern was expressed that the duty to reduce landfill was placed on waste disposal authorities when some of the means of delivering the targets, such as the collection systems that facilitate recycling—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made this point a little earlier—are in the hands of the waste collection authorities. Of course, that only presents a problem in two-tier authorities. We expect that the authorities will plan together to achieve targets. However, where that is not the case, we will provide a power for waste disposal authorities to issue a direction to collection authorities on the manner in which waste is delivered for disposal, so it can be delivered in a form that facilitates recycling.

Alan Whitehead: Is it the Government's intention to attach any sanction to the directions that my right hon. Friend mentions, so that the waste supplied by the waste collection authorities is guaranteed to be in a form suitable for the waste disposal authorities?

Michael Meacher: Of course, if the House accepts the proposal that we introduced in another place, there would have to be an enforceable power of direction. There is no question about that. Obviously, again, we would much prefer disposal and collection authorities to work together. We do not want such things to be done by legal enforcement and penalties. However, as with all systems, there must be an ultimate form of external enforcement, so that will certainly be there.

Alan Whitehead: For those of us with two-tier authorities this is the nub of the problem. Is it not worth considering treating the waste disposal and waste collection authorities for this purpose as one authority and making that clear to the waste collection authorities? There will be good waste collection authorities working with the waste disposal authority, and also bad ones. The danger is that the bad ones will almost certainly rely on some degree of subsidy, and that is unfair. Can we not just treat them as one authority?

Michael Meacher: I will not say that that is the nuclear option—it is perhaps not an appropriate phrase at this time. That is a rather extreme way of resolving the problem. There are much wider implications about the division of responsibility between district councils and county councils. Simply to amalgamate them to overcome the problem is to go too far. We are right to find a way of getting them to work together compatibly in terms of the waste management strategy, but not to the extent of amalgamation.
	I was going to go into detail about parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, but in view of the length of my speech I will not. In conclusion, I am proud—

Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend can be proud about emissions trading which is in part 2 of the Bill. The Government have done extremely well on that. Will he help me in relation to coalmine methane? It is a major pollutant that can be converted into energy. The Government acknowledge that in the White Paper, but can they see the way forward to make it happen? Will this Bill help the conversion of coalmine methane to energy?

Michael Meacher: The Government are keen to see coalmine methane tapped and used as an energy source, and not vented into the atmosphere. That is in everyone's interests. I have met the Association of Coalmine Methane on two occasions. There is no internationally agreed technology for determining the contribution of reducing coalmine methane in terms of our international greenhouse gas reduction targets. That is one remaining problem. In the absence of an internationally agreed technology, we cannot secure benefit in terms of our own target. We have commissioned extra research to provide that methodology and I would expect it to be ready within two years, but I am afraid that will not be immediate. I have examined this in great detail and I am sympathetic to what the operators want to do, but we cannot overcome that problem at this time.

Joan Walley: Many of us are extraordinarily proud of what we are doing to combat global warming. The ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent has been efficient in implementing the whole of the carbon levy. In view of the emissions trading schemes outlined in the Bill, can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of the discussion that he will have with the industry, the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions in respect of forthcoming and pending European directives?

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend must be telepathic because this is the one remaining part of what I was about to say, so I shall answer her with the brief which effectively deals with her point.
	We are pleased that we launched the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in April last year. Absolute emission reductions will be delivered to help us meet our international obligations. In addition, a voluntary participation scheme is giving UK business, Government and the City of London a head start on the practical operation of such schemes prior to the introduction of EU and international trading schemes. The EU scheme becomes operative in 2005.
	The Bill does not set up the scheme or determine eligibility; it simply provides a statutory basis for penalties for the current scheme and for any future emissions trading scheme. The statutory penalties are important to secure value in emissions allowances and to underpin the market. The UK emissions trading scheme is complex, so perhaps the House can endure a couple of minutes while I try to explain the place that it has in the Bill.
	There are currently three types of participants. The penalties provided for by the Bill will apply to the direct participants. They have taken an absolute five-year emissions reduction target from sources within the scheme in return for a financial incentive. They are responsible for emissions from power generators rather than the generators themselves. Some 34 organisations are involved, spanning sizes and sectors including the public sector. The main exclusions are power generators.
	The second target holders are climate change agreement participants. These agreements between the Government and sector associations and operators in 44 energy intensive sectors set energy or emission reduction targets. Should they meet their target, they receive an 80 per cent. discount from the climate change levy. Holders can use the scheme to buy allowances to help meet their target or they may make greater reductions and sell their surplus.
	Thirdly, there are the trading participants who do not hold targets but simply buy and sell—in other words they speculate—in the allowance market and provide additional liquidity. This Bill, then, delivers on the promise explicit in the contracts and other scheme documentation to provide for statutory penalties for direct participants who fail to meet their annual emission targets. They will be welcomed by all participants in the scheme because it is in their interests to have a robust, secure market. The Bill does not change compliance for climate change agreement participants because their penalty is to lose their 80 per cent. levy discount. That is a powerful driver.
	The Bill also takes the opportunity to prepare for future emissions trading schemes and to ensure that they can have a robust compliance base. The Bill gives a power to provide for penalties in future emissions trading schemes and such potential schemes may cover other pollutants regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the regulation, such as acid rain gases, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
	The Bill puts the tools in place to help us tackle some of the biggest environmental challenges that we face as a nation and internationally. It does that through innovative instruments, which will enable burdens to be spread more effectively. It uses market-based tools, which should deliver more economically optimal solutions. On that basis and with apologies for the length of my speech, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington: After one or two of the press reports last weekend, I suppose that I should start by saying that I am genuinely glad to see the Minister in his place on the Government Front Bench today. We have a number of questions to ask and a number of criticisms to make of the Bill and of the Government's policy. However, in general, I welcome the Bill as a constructive measure that is designed to secure good environmental outcomes.
	I am glad, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is in his place. I am sorry, however, that he is not on the Front Bench. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous work that he has done as a member of the Opposition Front Bench team, shadowing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the eight or nine months that he has been under my leadership.
	A system of allowances or permits is an imaginative way in which to harness the power of the market and the price mechanism to deliver good environmental outcomes. We have already seen—especially with the experience in the United States with sulphur dioxide emissions—that this type of instrument can work, as the Minister said, with flexibility and cost-effectiveness to deliver results in the general interest. I welcome the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that the model in the Bill might be applied in future to other types of emission. Although no panacea will deliver all the environmental improvements that we want, I believe that permit or allowance trading schemes should form an important part of this country's environmental policy.
	I want to talk about part 2 of the Bill. For understandable reasons, part 2 has tended to be overlooked in debates in the House of Lords, where attention has concentrated on waste policy provisions. I agree with the Minister that the penalties that are incorporated in the Bill were always seen as part of the Government's emissions trading scheme. Their incorporation should not be controversial. However, we should reflect on our experience of the first year of trading in carbon dioxide emission permits. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will tell us about the Government's assessment of how much difference the emissions trading scheme has made in practice. He will know that, in the past couple of weeks, Enviros Consulting has published its assessment of the ETS. It concluded that most of the direct participants in emissions trading—the companies that are the subject of the penalties in the Bill—entered the scheme when the level of emissions from their firms was falling and predicted to fall further. In effect, they were getting a financial incentive from the Government for delivering what they were on course to deliver anyway. I accept the Minister's statement that there have been benefits to this country in having an emissions trading scheme and in getting there ahead of many of our competitors—we have expertise and skills and the ability to sell them elsewhere in the world. However, it would be useful if the Minister could give us the Government's account of whether the ETS has delivered reductions in emissions in its first year, or whether it has simply provided a framework within which trends that were already apparent have continued.
	One million tonnes of carbon dioxide were traded in that first year. From the consultants' report, it looks as if direct participants were overall sellers of surplus permits and their buyers were already the big energy users in climate change agreements. An interesting question arises over the relationship between the climate change agreement participants and the direct participants in the ETS. Do the Government believe that that buyer-seller balance is likely to continue or do they expect to see greater equilibrium in the market?
	My second point on the emissions trading scheme is to do with how long it will remain in operation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the European Union scheme will come into effect as early as 2005. Commissioner Wallström seems set against permitting variations between emissions trading arrangements in different EU countries once a pan-Community scheme has come into being. Does the Minister envisage a transitional period to allow participants in a UK scheme to move over to the rules of the EU scheme? How will permits that companies have bought in the market under the British trading scheme be carried over to the EU scheme; or are buyers of British emissions permits taking a financial risk because the permits will cease to have value when the European scheme comes into existence?
	My third point is that, as I understand it, the EU directive will make emissions trading permits mandatory for designated large industrial installations, but will also allow member states a certain amount of freedom to extend permit trading arrangements to other categories of enterprise. Do the Government want to take advantage of the freedoms currently allowed under the draft directive? Given the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), a relevant example would be for us to look into some sort of methane trading system. That might cover the coal works problems to which he referred, as well as dealing with landfill methane emissions, and could give landfill operators a further incentive to reduce the amount of material that they put underground.
	That leads me to the provisions in the first part of the Bill for allowance trading arrangements for biodegradable municipal waste. My problem with the Bill has—to be fair—been acknowledged by the Minister. I am not concerned about the content of the Bill as such, but about the fact that it is difficult to judge its overall impact on waste policy more generally, especially in the absence of the Government's response to the strategy unit's report. We do not have an overall statement as to how the Government propose to respond not only to the landfill directive but to the plethora of European directives that will influence how the UK deals with different waste streams over the next five to 20 years.
	As the Minister said, household waste in Britain is increasing at about 3 per cent. a year. It is rising even faster than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predictions for economic growth, let alone the actual rate. Eighty per cent. of our household waste goes into landfill. I have to acknowledge that successive Governments have found that situation hard going; they found it easier to set recycling targets than to deliver them in practice. Furthermore, the performance of local authorities varies hugely: some are taking great strides and recycling greater proportions of their waste, while others are failing to do so. The strategy unit concluded that there is a major and growing gap between waste produced, the amount of waste sent to landfill and the amount allowed under the landfill directive.
	A reduction in the amount that we send to landfill is a worthwhile objective. After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. A quarter of Britain's methane emissions come from landfill and I understand that the UK accounts for no less than 15 per cent. of all methane emissions in the European Union. As all Members know from their constituents, landfill is an unpleasant solution for people who live either near the tip or along the routes—road or rail—by which the waste reaches the landfill site.
	The puritan in me—and, no doubt, in other Members—is offended by the wastefulness of chucking away large amounts of raw material that could be reused. The European landfill directive will certainly prompt swifter change than would have occurred if we had been left to our own devices. Nevertheless, I am concerned at the prospect that both national and local government policy may be driven more by the need to avoid fines for breach of the directive than by finding the best way forward, and at the right pace, for reducing and properly managing waste in the UK context. I also regret that the Bill is not accompanied by a comprehensive waste management strategy that considers landfill in the broader context. There may be an opportunity on another occasion to debate the many different illustrations of the complexity of waste policy, such as the rules that are being introduced on tyres, the end of life vehicles directive, the new proposals on packaging waste and a possible directive on batteries that is being considered by the Commission. I want to give two such illustrations.
	The first, incineration, was mentioned by several Labour Members. We need a rational debate about incineration. It is certainly hugely unpopular with people who are told that an incinerator is planned for their neighbourhood, but there will always be some materials that require incineration. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark, which have a reputation for being extremely committed to green environmental policies, incinerate very large quantities of their waste. In Denmark, more than half of all waste is incinerated. That said, there is an extremely strong case for arguing that no new incinerator should be allowed unless it also allows the recovery of energy. There is also a strong case for arguing that we should be wary of large-scale incinerators that end up relying on vast quantities of waste being transported over huge distances for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to keep the furnaces going. Incineration is a complex policy issue to resolve.

David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the contradiction at the heart of the waste problem is that unless individuals and families are prepared to take personal responsibility for creating less waste, we are all on to a loser? The basic problem with incineration is that it requires scale. If that scale goes against the proximity principle, no individual will take responsibility. That is where the problem of incineration really lies—it is somebody else's problem and there is no personal responsibility.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. What worries me, though, is meeting councillors who tell me that they now see incineration as the only way in which they will be able to deliver in time the reduction of landfill use that is required if they are to meet the Government's targets, which flow from the target arrangements in the European directive.

Norman Baker: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments so far. Will he accept my view, which is that the Bill tends to put incineration on a level playing field with recycling and composting, notwithstanding the Minister's hierarchy? The landfill tax is the only tax that discriminates. Would it not be helpful if there were financial disincentives for incineration?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. The key point is that we need to consider landfill, recycling and incineration together. The Bill, by omission, makes an artificial distinction between different methods of waste disposal and the incentives or penalties that we would wish to associate with them. They should be considered strategically together, which the Bill fails to do.
	My second illustration concerns the new rules that are being introduced on the separation of waste. Recycling will work only if there is effective separation of different categories of waste material. Within a few years, we will face the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which will require everything from television sets to electronic greetings cards to be dealt with separately from other household waste streams. New definitions and new rules for the disposal of hazardous waste are being introduced, which will also impose further duties on local authorities. I would be interested in the Government's assessment of how those rules will interact with those inherent already in the landfill directive. Have the regulatory impact assessment and the costs to local authorities of implementing article 5 of the landfill directive been underestimated because we have not yet added into the sum the further duties that may be imposed on them by the WEEE directive and the hazardous waste regulations?

Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about directives. Does he accept, that the way that this House and the Government deal with European directives is not satisfactory? Our legislation is now driven from Europe, we have made bad mistakes, and we can improve, but it is incumbent on us to look more closely at the way that we handle and consider directives.

David Lidington: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. To show that I am speaking in a genuinely bipartisan fashion, I will tell him that I spent my first five years in the House serving on one of the European Scrutiny Committees, and I know that the problems of which he speaks are not new to the present Administration. I remember learning a great deal on that Committee by studying the example of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as she interrogated a series of Ministers of the then Conservative Government about why they had signed up to this or that detail of various European directives. As he will understand, this subject is worth a long debate in its own right, and I shall not go further into it now. I agree with his general point, however.
	I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in his intervention. He was right to say that the success of recycling in particular, and, therefore, indirectly, the success of a tradeable allowances scheme, will be delivered only if individuals feel that they can take ownership of this matter for themselves and that they have some vested interest in a desirable environmental outcome. It also relies on two further things: on local authorities having the capacity to sort and recycle more waste than they do at present; and on the private sector coming up with a profitable end use for recyclates. Otherwise, we will collect, sort and recycle and end up putting the recycled materials back into the landfill tip, because we cannot find an economic end use for them.
	Some important questions arise out of this Bill in relation to the impact on local authorities' costs. To start with, there are the administrative costs of setting up and running the scheme, which the Local Government Association estimates to be in the order of £15 million nationally. Subsequently, there are far greater costs, which the Minister acknowledged indirectly in his remarks about the need for large-scale new investment in recycling capacity: the costs of installing and operating recycling facilities that do not exist at the moment.
	It is not good enough for the Government to argue, as they seemed to do in the other place, that local authorities have plenty of money with which to deliver those objectives. The money comes to local authorities from two sources. The first is the national waste management and recycling challenge fund, which has helped a number of local councils but has rejected bids from others, and all local authorities are at risk of financial penalties under the landfill directive. The other source of funding to local authorities is via the environmental, protective and cultural services block of local government finance. That, of course, must also cover such matters as flood protection, coastal defence and emergency planning, all of which are under considerable pressure at the moment, and are areas of local government responsibility in which councils are being urged by the Government, and by others, to spend more money rather than less.
	I want to make three suggestions to the Minister about finance, and I hope that they will be constructive. First, he should hypothecate any revenue from fines back to local authorities to allow improvement to their collection and recycling services or to the private sector as an incentive to develop markets for recyclates further. Secondly, he should consider doing the same thing with the increased revenue that the Government plan to raise from their proposed large increase in the landfill tax. It was interesting that Lord Whitty seemed to suggest in the House of Lords that the Government were considering such measures, although he declined to be drawn on the detail.
	My third suggestion is for the Government to give local authorities the freedom to offer incentives to householders who reduce their waste and sort recyclable products. Incentives will probably work better than penalties, which deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud. If people risk facing a penalty, they will be tempted either to fly-tip their rubbish or to place it surreptitiously in their neighbour's bin. If people were offered an incentive such as a small council tax rebate, they might be tempted to follow good practice.

Alan Whitehead: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest using incentives rather than padlocks on wheelie bins. In the light of his remarks about hypothecation, will he tell the House whether he would support the recent changes to the administration of the landfill levy set out in the pre-Budget report, which will place tax forgone into the realm of larger recycling and reuse schemes rather than into the present system?

David Lidington: We will want to examine the Government's proposals in detail and especially in the light of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in a few weeks' time. I was outlining the principle that if the extra revenue that the Government are committed to take from the tax increase is to produce the benefits that they claim, it must be ploughed back into recycling capacity and markets for recyclates. Otherwise, they will take more money in tax without improving recycling rates.
	I want to ask the Minister about a couple of the more technical aspects of the Bill that we will want to explore further in Committee. First, several hon. Members talked about the relationship between waste collection and waste disposal authorities in a two-tier system. The Bill provides for a county council to be fined if a district council fails to separate waste effectively. The Lords sensibly amended the Bill by inserting a requirement for a joint municipal waste strategy. However, there is still a question of whether the waste disposal authority—the county council—should be able to impose penalties on a district council that does not do its job correctly. We shall want to debate that in more detail but I should be interested to hear the Government's intended approach to that.
	Secondly, there is the question of the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and, possibly again in future, Northern Ireland. My understanding is that under the directive, the United Kingdom collectively will be fined if European targets are not met. Clause 9 provides for fines to be shared out within the UK as a whole if collectively it breaches its landfill targets in the target years. I was not certain from the Minister's opening speech whether the fines for a failure in one part of the UK would have to be borne by it or whether, for the sake of argument, a failure by England to deliver on its landfill targets would have to be picked up by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers as well.
	That is an important point because, as the Minister said, Scotland and Wales have the freedom to design their own schemes. The last note that I read suggested that the Scottish scheme would involve tradeable permits which, however, would not be tradeable across the border. It also suggested that the Welsh scheme might not allow the trading of allowances at all. The different parts of the United Kingdom will design their own schemes, which may or may not be equally effective. Do the Government believe that the ineffectiveness of a particular scheme means that the entire UK will breach its targets and become liable for the failures of the scheme in one of its component parts?
	We look forward to exploring the Bill in detail later. We have reservations, not so much about its content but about the fact that it is being considered in isolation, separate from broader questions about climate change and waste management policy. If it makes a constructive contribution to delivering good environmental outcomes, we shall not oppose it, but shall do our best to make constructive criticisms and give overall support.

David Kidney: This is a good little Bill. It provides for a trading scheme for local authorities that dispose of waste, so that they can trade allowances for the disposal of BMWs—biodegradable municipal waste, not the upmarket motor car. It also provides for penalties to support the existing voluntary scheme on trading in carbon emissions.
	The Bill should not be mistaken for, nor misrepresented as, the sum total of the Government's strategy to reduce, reuse and recycle waste—it is but one part of a much larger whole. The Government's waste strategy, published in 2000, set out a number of other strategies, including the use of targets; the landfill tax; changes to the landfill tax credit scheme, which are about to be introduced; the waste minimisation fund, the first round of which has just been distributed; and public campaigns to raise awareness and support among the public, most noticeably the "Are you doing your bit?" campaign.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for steering her private Member's Bill—the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill—through its Second Reading in the House last Friday. That Bill provides for greater kerbside collection of household waste by local authorities, thereby adding another element to the overall waste strategy that we ought to consider. I agreed with the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it called for strong leadership, bearing it in mind that the Government's strategy has many complex elements. Strong leadership is clearly important to pull them all together, drive them forward and make sure that they are successful.
	I am pleased to tell the House that I have been close enough to the Department to be able to assure it that the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment are ready, able and willing to provide that leadership. Indeed, the whole ministerial team and the top management at the Department show a deep and abiding commitment to making a success of the Government's waste strategy.
	The new waste trading scheme in part 1 will probably be the first such scheme in the world. Trading in allowances can contribute to driving up the performance of waste disposal authorities. Currently, their performances show a surprisingly large degree of variation, by which I mean that some are pretty poor. The scheme will apply to biodegradable waste. Total UK waste is about 400 million tonnes a year. About 30 million tonnes is municipal solid waste, 60 per cent. of which is biodegradable. So although it is true that the Bill deals with a sizeable proportion of all municipal waste, it deals with only a modest proportion of the country's total waste, hence the need for an overall strategy. Of course, a much bigger proportion of our country's waste is produced in the private sector, although in fairness, the best in that sector are doing better than the best of our local authorities in their duties of reducing, reusing and recycling.
	We could try to increase the proportion of municipal solid waste that is biodegradable. As the Minister knows, I have asked parliamentary questions about increasing the use of biodegradable materials in goods packaging, in place of the plastic packaging that we quickly remove and discard. For example, I am very interested in the use of a substitute for plastic bags that has been developed from potato starch. Our farmers are desperate for alternative uses for their land, and non-food crops are a very good way in which they can diversify and obtain new areas of business. Some supermarkets are already voluntarily trialling plastic bags made from biodegradable material. We should give every encouragement to such developments.
	As we have discussed, in many parts of the country—including shire counties such as Staffordshire—the waste disposal authority is different from the waste collection authority. In Staffordshire, the county council is the former, and the various district councils are the latter, so it is not surprising that the Local Government Association is asking what mechanisms are planned to ensure that co-operation between different councils actually happens. After all, a waste disposal authority that sends to landfill biodegradable municipal waste that is not covered by allowances will be fined. What will happen if Staffordshire county council is fined for behaviour that is the fault of a district council?
	On co-operation between councils, I pay tribute to John Dutton, chief executive of the Staffordshire environmental fund, which is one of the funding bodies under the existing landfill tax credit scheme. He had the foresight to bring together all the councils in Staffordshire to look at the key issues in co-operation over waste disposal. Together, they have looked at stimulating markets for reusable and recycled goods—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—and examined the scope for closer co-operation between councils, thereby presaging the amendment from the other place on joint municipal waste strategies. They have also considered developing waste parks, in which multi-activities such as sorting, recovering, reusing, recycling, processing and product development could all take place—in the same place, at the same time.
	I have a constituency interest in knowing to what extent the Government intend that advanced conversion technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification will contribute to the policy of reducing landfill. This is not incineration—the process that gives rise to people's health fears—but an energy recovery method that is often associated with reducing biomass into a renewable energy source. I raise the point because a very enterprising company in my constituency, Talbotts Heating, is something of a world leader in this conversion technology. The Minister may remember that, during his recent visit to Yorkshire to give out awards for the Country Land and Business Association, Mr. Bob Talbott, of Talbotts Heating, bent his ear. He is an enthusiastic entrepreneur, and keen to help Staffordshire to reduce the waste that goes to landfill. But Staffordshire county council—the waste disposal authority—is under the impression that the Government favour recycling over conversion, so it is reluctant to co-operate with his company. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify in his response to the debate, or later in a letter to me if that is more convenient, whether the county council's understanding is right.
	I have a letter from the council on the matter, a crucial part of which explains its position and states:
	"The current priority is to increase the recycling of waste to improve performance under national Best Value Performance Indicator BV82a. In this respect incineration is not classified as recycling. Consequently the incineration of materials which are currently being recycled would make the Council's performance under BV82a worse, not better."
	Clearly, the council classifies even the kind of energy conversion that I am describing as a form of incineration. That is why I ask the Minister for his view.
	Part 2 relates to emissions trading. Surely all fair-minded people will give the Government great credit for that. Let us recall the background. The UK was a leading player in making the Kyoto process work. For the first time, the world's leading nations—well, most of them—agreed legally binding targets for reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Within the European Union, we took a good proportion of the EU's target reduction as our share of the obligation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Domestically, we went further and adopted an even more challenging target for ourselves. Not content to rest on our laurels, the Prime Minister made a most impressive speech recently, urging us on to an even more demanding target by the middle of the century.
	In the follow-up to Kyoto at Marrakesh, the participating nations agreed that achievement of the targets for reductions in emissions could be aided by, among other initiatives, an emissions trading scheme. Once again, the UK has acted first. We have become the first state to introduce a trading scheme. It is a voluntary scheme, but it is being taken up by a wide variety of organisations.
	For example, Barclays Bank was one of 34 companies, and the only financial services sector representative, to volunteer to become a direct participant in the scheme when it was launched last year. Barclays has taken on a commitment to reduce by 10,000 tonnes over five years CO2 emissions from a portfolio of 83 large properties bid into the scheme. That equates to a reduction of about 11 per cent. in emissions from its buildings.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether that was what the company had already planned to do. That is a good point. Quizzing Barclays Bank about its boastful claim, I was told that the company already had an environmental management strategy of its own, under which it had intended to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. in the same period anyway, so we have bought an extra 1 per cent. That illustrates the difference between targets and aspirations. It is fair to say that in the past, Barclays Bank would have aspired to the 10 per cent. reduction, but because of the financial penalties, it intends to meet a rather tough commitment to 11 per cent. It is sharpening up its environmental management, as are all the other participants, I expect. That is important because carbon emissions from business activity are probably proportionately very big, as is the waste that I mentioned earlier.

Jonathan Sayeed: I have heard a slightly different story. British Airways made some money out of the Government by doing what it intended to do anyway, by selling off part of its air fleet, particularly the budget side. It got money from the Government because British Airways thereby reduced its emissions, but it did not reduce the emissions overall. All that happened was that another company took up that fleet, ran the budget airline and produced the same emissions. That does not seem to be the best use of public money.

David Kidney: Clearly, that is why the hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the question for the Minister to answer when he winds up. I suspect that the airline industry is not a good example for us. Nevertheless, in defence of the private sector companies taking part, I would say that from the scheme has flowed a greater appreciation of their responsibilities. To mention Barclays one last time—it was an excellent dinner, after all—it has a presence in something like 60 countries around the world, and its environmental strategy that started in the UK is now applied across virtually all those other parts of the world. We are exporting very good practices, which is encouraging, to say the least.
	The new trading scheme could not be described as tough if there were no credible sanctions for the participants. The Bill introduces the fines that will be levied if participants fail to comply with their commitments under the scheme. So here are two new trading schemes. In both cases, the UK leads the world. Of course, being the leader means that there is no template to follow, and we might not get everything right first time. In regard to the emissions trading scheme, the European Union is developing an EU-wide scheme that might require changes to be made to our scheme.
	Taking those things into account, it should not be surprising that the Bill has to provide for future changes in certain respects, some by statutory instrument, others by ministerial power. In respect of the powers to make changes, I would like to make a plea for the involvement of the Select Committee. I am not a member of the Committee, so this is not special pleading. The modern legislative process is complex and time-consuming, and not everything can be achieved by primary legislation. The House should be involved, however, in the exercise by Ministers of the powers that we grant them. What better way is there for that to happen than through our well-developed system of Select Committees? I congratulate the Government on their enterprise in developing these trading schemes, and I wish them well in making a success of them.

Norman Baker: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I agree with his last point about the Select Committee. Indeed, this is one of those pleasurable occasions on which there is a good deal of agreement on both sides of the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, and I do not imagine that there will be a Division tonight, but if there is, we shall support the Government in the Lobby. That is not to say that everything about the Bill is perfect, but—credit where credit is due—its principle is absolutely right and the Government are ahead of the game in using economic instruments in this way.
	The use of economic instruments throws up a potential problem, although it is definitely right to go down that road. In a different capacity, I remember being in a room with Chris Patten back in 1989, when he was involved with the Pearce report, which looked for the first time at the use of economic instruments in an innovative way. I was sorry that the work that he did seemed to run into the sand two or three years later, because there was an opportunity then to grasp the importance of merging the economy and the environment.
	I seriously believe that, if we are to make good progress on the environment, we must do so in conjunction with economic instruments—which means, effectively, in conjunction with the Treasury. I am not sure that the mechanisms of government would allow us to do that effectively, however. We have, necessarily, a straitjacketed departmental arrangement whereby Departments do not always talk to one other. They have their own responsibilities, they build their own walls, and they have their own jealousies, which they guard. I sometimes think that, with the changes that are now taking place in government, some of those barriers could be broken down.
	I represented my party this morning on a statutory instrument Committee on the climate change levy. My party had decided that I should be there because that was an environmental matter. The Government and the Conservative party were, understandably, represented by a Treasury Minister and shadow Minister. The discussion was on financial matters and was very dry and arcane, and there was not much said about the environment, although the implications of the climate change levy are enormous for it. We need to find a way of having more effective cross-departmental working. I know that the Minister has started his Green Ministers Committee, which is helpful, but not necessarily enough.
	I do not want to stray too far from the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me just make this point. We have discussed combined heat and power, which is covered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The rest of energy is covered by the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Treasury is the Department that was running the show this morning. Directives that are clearly germane to the Bill and to the Government's waste strategy, such as the packaging directive and its amendments, and the waste electronic and electrical equipment directive, are being snaffled by the DTI rather than being dealt with by the Department that I think should be dealing with them—DEFRA. I am not convinced that the mechanisms are helping the Government to deliver their own agenda, and I hope that that can be looked at.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the Bill is like the dog that did not bark in the night. It is what is not in the Bill that is disappointing, rather than what is. It would certainly have been helpful to have the Government's response to "Waste Not, Want Not" before Second Reading and indeed before the Committee stage. I do not know whether the Minister can give us a definite date, but obviously the sooner we have a response, the better.

David Lidington: Budget day?

Norman Baker: Quite possibly.
	It would also be better if we had a waste management strategy or, as I prefer to call it, a resource management strategy. This is only one part of the equation, and until we are confident that the rest of the jigsaw fits together, we cannot be confident that the Bill will deliver the Government's aims. There is, for instance, nothing about incineration in the Bill apart from ancillary references, and nothing much about fly tipping, waste minimisation and a host of other matters that should be considered together if we are to deal with waste in a sensible and co-ordinated way.
	The Minister was honest enough to say—he is always honest about environmental matters, and doubtless about other matters as well—that we have a long way to go. Not only our waste arisings but our landfillings are increasing: recycling is not catching up with the increase in the amount of waste. That is a silly situation for us to be in environmentally, in terms of the Government's meeting of the targets in the European landfill directive. The Minister is right to draw attention to those facts and to say that drastic action is needed, and I think that the Bill responds to the challenge; but I am not convinced that it will achieve what it seeks to achieve.
	Is the Minister seeking to achieve compliance with the landfill directive in 2016 or in 2020? There seems to be some uncertainty about that. On 24 February, when I asked him about the matter, he said:
	"preparations are in hand to support our aim of meeting the Landfill Directive's final biodegradable municipal waste reduction target by 2016."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 91W.]
	Clause 23, however, refers only to implementing the directive in 2020. I am not sure whether it is an escape clause in case the Government undershoot by four years, or whether the Government are banking on a 2020 implementation and 2016 is merely a theoretical target.
	I do not intend to repeat everything that has already been said by others, including the Minister, but I would like to mention some issues that have not been raised in the Bill or in much detail today. I have already referred to penalties in an intervention on the Minister. I am not sure whether the penalty system will work, although I hope that it will. Waste disposal authorities are having to deal with the increased waste arisings, but the Bill expects them to have the same amount of waste landfilled in the first year of the Bill's operation as in the year before. There is thus an immediate target to be met, and I am not sure that local authorities are up and running in that respect. Despite the best endeavours of many of them, and the exhortations of the Government and others, we are still lagging behind other countries with only a 12 per cent. recycling rate, and no indication that it is rising fast enough to deal with the situation.
	There is therefore a real possibility that, in the first year, a huge number of local authorities will fail to meet that immediate target. They will not be able to cope with the extra waste being created by the 3 per cent. annual increase in waste arisings. If most do not meet the target, not many will have permits for sale; they will all be clamouring to buy them. But where will they buy them? If only a few authorities manage to meet the target, the price of permits is likely to be high—even astronomical. I cannot envisage local authorities giving them away, although that is allowed for in the Bill. Authorities in possession of a piece of paper with some value will want to redeem that value by selling it.
	If the price of permits is indeed high, authorities may wonder whether it is better to default and face a penalty or to pay an enormous amount for a permit. If they choose to default and pay a penalty, it will reduce the amount of money that local authorities have to spend on recycling, and that could start a vicious cycle that would make it less likely that they would meet their targets in future years. The Government might have to use the power in clause 26(1)(c)(ii) which gives the allocating authority carte blanche to waive penalties. The allocating authority might have to say, "We accept that most waste disposal authorities do not have permits to trade and the price is very high, so we will waive the penalty." In that case, we would have made no progress and the trading scheme, which I support, would be undermined at an early stage.
	The market will need to work—if it does, we will welcome it—but the initial trading is the most difficult to achieve. The market will work only if the targets effectively enable local authorities to take action to meet them. If they cannot meet those targets, the market system will collapse. The Local Government Association has already said that it has some doubts about the initial phases, not least because some local authorities will rely on incineration. If they do, they will need public inquiries, planning permission and long lead-in periods for building. East Sussex is running away, I am sorry to say, with an attempt to build an incinerator in my constituency. It has even signed the contract before the public inquiry takes place, which must be something of a record, but even with that accelerated time scale, the incinerator will not be operational until 2009. I am not sure how the Government's targets can be reached, because it will be very difficult to do so.
	Some extra money will have to be provided to local authorities, at an early stage, to enable recycling, composting, reuse and waste minimisation to take place and the targets to be met—even half met. Local authorities face huge council tax increases this year. I do not understand that, because the Government say that they have given every authority an inflation-plus increase and they are all better off. However, every authority in my area, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, appears to have a massive tax increase, so I do not understand how the system has worked—or not worked. In any case, local authorities do not have lots of money to spend on such schemes.
	The landfill tax, which is going up on an escalator—if that is not a dirty word in the Treasury these days—is not going up fast enough. It can still be more expensive to recycle than to landfill. For example, I visited a site—it may even have been in the Minister's constituency—where they were trying to recycle windows from a tower block that was being demolished. The local authority had to choose between paying £9 to recycle them or £5 to landfill them. There is, therefore, a perverse incentive to landfill at the moment, although the landfill tax will increase over time. It will cost local authorities more to act in an environmentally responsible way, at least in the short term, than to be irresponsible. That cannot be right. We need some early financial changes if we are to increase recycling and if the market system is to work. Otherwise, the Minister and the scheme will soon face problems, which would be regrettable, especially as it is a good scheme in principle.
	I am not an expert on Northern Ireland, but it is difficult to see how cross-border trading could take place. Local authorities in that area might have arrangements to dispose of their waste in the Republic, and I am not clear about how that fits with the UK's target under the landfill directive and what allowance will be made for exports of waste from Northern Ireland to the Republic. I do not know whether that has been taken into account or whether it is banned. I profess myself ignorant on that issue, but it needs to be sorted out. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer when he replies.
	I turn now to incineration, which has been raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister may have failed to understand the point to do with clause 17(3) made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). The Minister spoke about the waste hierarchy. He is clear in his own mind about what it is, as I am, but in practical terms it means that landfill is at the bottom of the pile, with everything else above it. The Bill does not make the necessary differentiation.
	Clause 17(3), which deals with waste that should have gone to landfill being diverted, states:
	"The measures mentioned in subsection (2) include (in particular) measures to achieve the targets by recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery or energy recovery."
	There is no difference, separation or hierarchy in that: all options are treated equally. Local authorities are now faced with a requirement not to landfill, and there is a genuine uncertainty about whether they can meet their communities' recycling aspirations. I am worried that they will opt for incineration. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the genuine concern and fear of local authorities that there is no way to meet the targets without incineration. That is what local authorities around the country have told me—and, apparently, the hon. Member for Aylesbury—yet the Minister maintains that incineration will be only a small part of the solution and that it will not be used much at all.
	I do not think that that is the case. Unless the Minister takes action to incentivise recycling, reuse and waste minimisation, and to disincentivise waste incineration, incineration will become the preferred solution for waste disposal authorities up and down the country. They will go for incinerators, because they offer an easy way to deal with big percentages.
	It is much easier for an authority to sign a contract with a private company that promises to deal with 25 per cent. of that authority's waste in one big hit than it is for it to deal with myriad complicated schemes that will take time to sort out. Although the different ways that such schemes may deal with that 25 per cent. of waste may be preferable, they would be much more complicated. Faced with a succession of small schemes or one big scheme, I fear that local authorities will go for the one big scheme, unless the Government produce incentives for them to do otherwise.
	We all know the problems with incineration. They go beyond the emissions problem, which I think is overblown. Incineration diverts the waste stream away from recycling, ties local authorities into very long contracts and involves substantial transport movements. Also, the incinerators themselves—which are big beasts—blight the local landscape.
	Incineration undermines the proximity principle, on which the Minister is very keen. So am I, but the principle does not apply if one local authority can send the waste that it generates a long way away by lorry to be incinerated somewhere else. Where is the link then between the waste producer and the waste disposal? There is no link. Authorities can use incineration to put waste out of sight and out of mind. They have no incentive to recycle or deal with waste themselves. The hon. Member for Stroud said that the desire to deal with waste should be engendered in people, but that is undermined by incineration. Incineration is not available on the doorstep, unless one is very unlucky. People in Newhaven in my constituency may be unlucky if the county council has its way and puts an incinerator there. Incidentally, the proposed site is next to the national park, on which the Minister is also very keen.
	Incineration is immensely unpopular. Local authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place—they do not want incineration, but feel that they have to have it. However, local communities are up in arms whenever it is proposed to build an incinerator in a particular area. We need to disincentivise incineration. We need an incineration tax, to put it more on a level with landfill and to make local authorities look seriously at the alternatives. If such a tax is not forthcoming, there will be incinerators all over the country, and we will not have the recycling that the Minister wants.
	We also want the Bill to contain an approach to fly tipping, an issue that is germane to the Bill. As we increase the price of landfill and make it more difficult to deal legally with waste, the tendency will be for more and more waste to be thrown away in our countryside and towns. This must be looked at in parallel with the Bill. If not, we will find more and more waste strewn across the countryside. A parliamentary answer to me on 4 March from the Minister provided me with an astonishing statistic: the amount of material fly-tipped in the countryside in 2001 on agricultural land was 600,000 tonnes. That will get worse and we must deal with that in parallel.
	The Bill is a good idea and the Government are moving in the right direction, for which they deserve credit. They are right to use economic instruments to try to achieve environmental ends, but there are problems that I have identified, which I hope that the Minister will take seriously, because I want the Bill to work, as he does.

Ashok Kumar: The Bill is far reaching and I warmly welcome it. The management of waste is becoming an increasingly vital concern for all our communities. Excessive waste is becoming more and more of a problem for society as a whole. I want to refer to the impact of the Bill on my region and to highlight in particular the Teesside waste-from-energy plant to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister said that the 2000 waste strategy had a waste hierarchy, which boils down to three simple things: reduce, reuse and recover. They are all perfectly sensible ideas. By minimising the amount of waste produced by reducing the packaging, there is less waste to reuse, which is the next best option. Finding an alternative use for waste or alternative owners for goods regarded as waste by the current owners can also lessen the amount of waste that needs to be disposed. Finally, recovery is the next best option. Waste of different types can be separated out and reduced to its core components for use in the production of future products and goods. That includes the incineration of waste for energy recovery.
	There are varying forms of each of the options, but the essential difference between them and landfill is that within each process there is something positive to be gained from what has been traditionally regarded as rubbish; waste is used in one form or another to replace other materials, thereby conserving natural resources. The fourth option, and the exception to this, is disposal, of which landfill is only one option. I can think of few people who believe that burying rubbish is the best way to dispose of waste. Imagine if we did that in our daily lives, burying travel tickets, crisp packets and tissues. People would think we were mad, but that is what we do every day in landfill sites across the country. So reducing landfill is good and I welcome the decision to place the onus on local authorities to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill, but I do so with a caveat to which I shall return.
	On virtually every measure, landfill is the worst method environmentally. According to a recent Library paper, the UK produces 400 million tonnes of waste annually. Of this, 29.3 million tonnes is municipal solid waste, most of which is disposed in landfill. Currently, the area covering the former Cleveland county council handles approximately 310,000 tonnes of municipal waste from Teesside. Some 240,000 tonnes per annum are handled at the Teesside energy-from-waste facility.
	One of four local authorities in the Teesside area—Redcar and Cleveland borough council—disposes of about 52 per cent. of municipal waste via waste to energy and 49 per cent. to landfill. The local landfill site, Carlin Howe farm, is based in Dunsdale, near Guisborough in my constituency. The north-east regional assembly prepared a consultation document last month. It plans for the waste recycling and disposal needs of the four boroughs currently partnered through existing waste management and disposal plants and sites.
	For Redcar and Cleveland, the targets set out propose to increase the current total percentage of tonnage of household waste sent for composting. It is set to rise from 0.62 per cent. to 4 per cent. by 2005-06 by the introduction of the kerbside collection of garden household waste. The pilot scheme begins in Saltburn in my constituency next month. If successful, it will then be extended throughout the rest of the borough.
	Similarly, the total tonnage of household waste that has been recycled currently stands at 8.4 per cent., with proposed targets of 14 per cent. by 2004–05, 18 per cent. by 2005–06 and 20 per cent. by 2006–07. For an area that currently ranks bottom in the recycling stakes, these targets mark a cultural change locally. The north-east currently holds the title for the fewest households served by kerbside recycling, and the lowest percentage of household waste recycled. Nevertheless, the commitment of the local authority and the recent award of £600,000 from phase one of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' waste minimisation fund are enabling the construction of two new recycling centres. One is to be co-located with and linked to the region's existing incineration site. I hope that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge this approach and commitment to integrated waste management in his summing up.
	From listening to the debate, I know that serious criticisms have been made of incineration, but I want to say a few words about incineration on Teesside. The figures available on the Department of Trade and Industry's website show that, at the moment in the UK, about 2.5 million tonnes of waste a year are being used to fuel 180 MW of power generation. That is enough for 250,000 homes. The Cleveland-based Teesside energy waste plant incinerates 240,000 tonnes a year of municipal solid waste. It then uses the energy generated—around 20 MW of electricity and more than 10 per cent. of the national total—to meet the heating and power needs of 40,000 homes.
	Although I am aware of the benefits of incineration, I am also aware of the concerns that have been expressed. Environmental organisations and many hon. Members have expressed concern about the environmental impacts of major installations, such as waste management and energy generation plants. However, technology has improved in leaps and bounds. Sites such as the Teesside energy-from-waste plant can now employ proven clean-up systems, based on lime and carbon injection and dust filtration, to ensure that emission limits are met. If we add to that the lack of notices served by the enforcement authority responsible for monitoring environmental performance—the Environment Agency—I do not think that it is an overstatement to say that incineration is as clean a waste management and disposal method as most others.
	Following the implementation of the incineration directive, the amount of emissions that the plant is allowed to make are extremely low. Virtually everything except for fly ash is recycled in some way. That site includes a bottom ash recycling plant for ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
	Thanks to the non-fossil fuel obligation commitment to more sustainable energy, incineration is a significantly cheaper form of disposal. With the addition of the landfill tax, the scales will weigh even more heavily in favour of alternative waste disposal methods.
	Although I warmly welcome the Bill, I have some outstanding concerns that I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister. The contract for landfill services in Teesside allows penalties to be imposed in the absence of a set tonnage being deposited regularly, yet the Bill will introduce penalties on authorities for not reducing the waste that they send to landfill. Given that the Teesside authorities send among the lowest amounts of waste to landfill in the whole UK and that they are bound by a 25-year contract to continue to send that minimal amount to landfill, what would the Minister suggest that local authorities do to prevent being squeezed financially between—I think this phrase has been used—the rock of the contract and the hard place of the Bill's penalty clauses?
	I welcome the measures targeted at reducing high levels of landfill in favour of alternative forms of waste disposal. But—and this is a big but—I am concerned that those authorities that are already displaying a regard for such issues may be penalised under the new regime.
	In speaking to local authority waste management and disposal experts in advance of the debate, a number of other concerns and issues were brought to my attention. It was put to me that some of our European counterparts have a wider definition of the waste-to-energy processes and fuels eligible to be classified as renewable, thereby counting towards renewable targets. Is there any intention to look again at the definitions applied?
	I also ask my right hon. Friend to provide an assurance that the move from landfill to recycling will not penalise the affected authorities that have already pursued alternatives to landfill. When the 2000 waste strategy was introduced, serious concerns were expressed by, among others, the Institute of Wastes Management. It welcomed the strategy, but questioned whether adequate funding will be made available to achieve the measures outlined in it.
	Similarly, as has been mentioned, the Local Government Association has said that the Government need to make significant and increased funding available to allow local councils to achieve significantly greater diversion from landfill. It has also argued that the introduction of a penalty scheme will make it more difficult for waste disposal authorities to comply with landfill targets. It is worried that funds will be diverted from addressing the real challenge of providing alternatives to landfill. Despite some of the concerns that I have expressed, I strongly welcome the Bill and wish it speedy progress through the House.

Jonathan Sayeed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his very kind remarks. He will be aware that I had intended to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. However, other major matters intervened. One of the things that speaking from the Back Benches permits me to do, however, is to be a bit more robust in some of my remarks than I otherwise might have been.
	This is a useful Bill, but it is a wasted opportunity. It is extremely narrowly drawn and fails to provide a much needed comprehensive strategy for all forms of waste. It simply perpetuates the Government's piecemeal attitude to the issue. I am sorry to say that it is a testimony to their policy of serial compliance with EU directives, as and when they start to put the United Kingdom in a difficult, possibly costly or embarrassing position. The Bill is specifically time committed to deliver the landfill directive, and therein lies its overall weakness. Its scope is narrow, its vision is small minded and its provisions are inadequate. Moreover, the questions raised by their lordships as it passed through the scrutiny of the other place have been at worst ignored or at best incompetently answered by the Government.
	The Government strategy unit report of last November, "Waste Not, Want Not", specifically recommends regulation that deals with the problem in a holistic manner. We should be starting at the front line of battle by dealing with the minimisation of waste, but instead we are starting at the rearguard and with its final disposal. The Bill affects and penalises local authorities in their disposal of waste, but neglects to assist them in the minimising of waste at source. Furthermore, it fails to connect with other waste legislation—for example, the waste electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles directives. Although it is hoped that a large proportion of the waste arising from waste electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles will be recycled—and a very good thing too—there will be a certain residual amount left.
	If we are trying to deal with waste in a more comprehensive fashion, why is it that the Bill does not at least acknowledge the difficulties with the planning procedures, or deal with energy from waste plants and measures to combat fly tipping? The Bill does not and will not exist or operate in a vacuum. It will have a knock-on effect on incineration and other forms of waste, including inert waste.
	Already the introduction of new regulations, coupled with the need for better waste management facilities, has exacerbated the problem of fly tipping. The Country Land and Business Association estimates that the cost of clearing that up is about £50 million a year on agricultural land alone. The CLA has recommended that where waste has been fly tipped on private land and where the occupier can prove his innocence, it is for the authorities, either the local council or the Environment Agency, to be placed under a duty to remove the material. That at least would ensure an adequate clean-up and enable the scale of the problem to be assessed. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that fly-tipping incidents should be reported to the police and the Environment Agency and be given a crime reference number, in order to improve available data and to further promote criminal proceedings. All too often gross examples of fly tipping happen in rural and urban areas and cannot be dealt with. No prosecutions come, or when they do come, the fines are paltry.
	Why is it that only biodegradable municipal waste is considered appropriate for the whole concept of trading allowances, trading surpluses and buying in of allowances by authorities that do not have sufficient funds to cope with needs? After all, biodegradable domestic waste accounts for only 30 per cent. of total waste.
	The Bill also fails to reduce the transport of waste from one area to another. Clearly, the trading scheme does not imply the literal trading of waste, but some areas accept the waste of others. Indeed, my constituency has long accepted a high proportion of waste from London, owing to the proximity of Bedfordshire to London and the unfortunate existence of a multitude of cheap holes in the ground. By not tackling the situation we are ignoring the proximity principle which we all support, and we are only adding to greenhouse gas emissions.
	What are the implications of the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances? The banking of permits may act as a disincentive for waste disposal authorities to improve continuously year on year and to invest in required new infrastructure. The process that is outlined in the Bill may well create a culture of disincentive and short-termism. Has any serious attempt been made to assess the total compliance costs of the Bill? At the moment, we have a two-tier system of government for the management of waste and two types of authority that will incur expenses under the Bill. However, all the obligations are on the waste disposal authority. What will be the cost, to both tiers, of implementation? How do we ensure the fair distribution of resources between the waste collection and the waste disposal authorities? What will happen when a waste disposal authority incurs a penalty for the failure of a waste collection authority to discharge its duties? The Bill also creates an incentive for the waste disposal authority to blame the waste collection authority for its own failure to meet targets. I am in favour of joined-up governance, but there may be even more difficulties if the two authorities are run by parties of different political persuasions.
	From Second Reading last Friday, we know that the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill has made some headway towards an arranged marriage for waste disposal and waste collection authorities, with the production of a joint sustainable waste strategy. That strategy allows the waste disposal authority to direct the waste collection authority to collect waste in a manner that facilitates maximum reprocessing and recycling. Those provisions have been endorsed by an amendment to this Bill that was approved in the other place. I hope that a harmonious relationship will be established between the two Bills—the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill and this Bill. However, it remains unclear who is to pay for the enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
	What will happen to money that is collected in fines? May I suggest that the Minister consider that the money should be used to assist waste disposal authorities? Although initially designed to be revenue-neutral for business, the landfill tax does not necessarily help local authorities to acquire the capital to invest in the required waste management infrastructure. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith raised the issue of the landfill increase being used directly to support local authorities to fund the capital requirements for recycling. That was rejected by the Government. However, 54 per cent. of the revenue from landfill tax is money that is paid by local authorities. It seems only right that, if the revenue were to be substantially increased, at least a similar proportion of that escalation should be recycled back to those who have to foot the bill, in order that they may be encouraged and assisted to have the plant that will reduce the amount going to landfill. There is no doubt that the gap between the funding that is available to local authorities and the need for expenditure to meet sustainable waste objectives is widening. We have to recognise that the current funding mechanisms are inappropriate. Using the increase in landfill tax in the way that has been suggested would demonstrate that it is a tax designed to help the environment rather than a tax designed to fill the Chancellor's back pocket.
	If the measurement of waste were to incorporate volume as well as weight, we may further raise the sum and provide a greater incentive to reduce lightweight packaging. At the moment, the measurement is weight based only. It is therefore far more attractive for local authorities to collect heavy materials—such as newspaper, card, glass and compostable waste—and ignore the light fractions, which are much harder to deal with.
	That brings me on to the vital issue of the safe composting of catering waste. Compost that is to be spread on the land requires proper pre-treatment to ensure the safety of animal and human health, if we are not to face yet another agricultural catastrophe. Composted domestic biodegradable waste spread on agricultural land could be a cause of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and the Government have not yet demonstrated that they can guarantee zero risk when compost containing animal by-products and catering waste is spread on land.
	I acknowledge, however, that composted catering waste has an important role to play in helping local authorities to meet both their recycling and composting targets. I also recognise that my noble Friend's amendment, to heat selected biodegradable waste at 98o C for a minimum of two hours before storing, would have unwelcome consequences. The process would be cumbersome and more expensive, and would consume more energy, which is obviously contrary to the objectives on emissions trading in the Bill. However, like national security, biosecurity, too, must have priority.
	We still do not know the exact cause of the foot and mouth outbreak, but it can hardly be denied that, with only two sniffer dogs to guard all UK ports, we cannot prevent the illegal importation of the sort of meat and meat products that may have been the cause of foot and mouth. It is absurd that municipal biodegradable waste should be treated less rigorously than pigswill. If the Minister will not accept that heating selected biodegradable waste at 98o C is necessary, will he confirm that the Government will compensate all affected farmers in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak occurring as a result of spreading compost from animal by-products and catering waste? After all, the latter will be permitted under new EU regulations that will soon supersede the UK animal by-products regulations.
	My final point concerns the end use of recycled materials. Source separation secures high quality secondary resources, but it cannot be an end in itself unless there is a market for the materials. We still lack measures to support and sustain the markets necessary for recyclates, which is surprising given the market-orientated nature of both parts of the Bill. It would appear that while the Government are rightly content artificially to stimulate a market for emissions and waste permits, they are less concerned to assist a market for the constructive use of the waste materials collected. We risk defrauding the public, who will dutifully separate their waste only to have it end up in a landfill site or exported to China.
	I realise that one cannot legislate to provide for a comprehensive and holistic vision, but legislation should certainly slot into a progressive and coherent framework and direction. Although I welcome the Bill, I am sorry to have to say that it is simply a piecemeal attempt to rescue the Government from their failure to meet pressing demands from Brussels. It may even be a careless and somewhat irresponsible cover-up that leaves agriculture and food production vulnerable to another disaster.
	The Government must do better than that in Committee, if we are to be convinced of their real commitment to long-term planning and a robust, comprehensive waste management strategy. 4.58 pm

Alan Whitehead: I warmly support and endorse the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I do not believe that the Bill should deal with everything. Indeed, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on ensuring that time was obtained for the Bill in this Session. If the Bill had dealt with everything, several Sessions would have passed before all the various inquiries had reported and we actually had a Bill. Time is of the essence in taking action to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
	Some people claim that the Bill has been introduced only to implement the EU landfill directive. Some hon. Members have suggested that during the debate. It is certainly a Bill to implement the EU landfill directive, but it is substantially more than that. Essentially the directive is a series of targets with penalties. It is clearly desirable to meet those targets, but the key question that we have to ask ourselves is how we do that.
	Targets in UK waste management have a habit of not being met. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) noted that Governments of both colours have failed to get their targeting spot on, and that is true. The environment White Paper of 1990 set a target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2000. That target was re-emphasised in the 1995 strategy, "Making Waste Work", but it was not met. The 1999 document, "A Way with Waste", recognised that and set a new target of recycling or composting 17 per cent. of household waste by 2003–04. The performance and innovation unit report states that that is unlikely to be met as performance in 2001 was under 12 per cent. The target of 25 per cent. has now re-emerged, this time for 2005–06. The PIU report states that, given current progress, that will be very difficult to achieve. So we need more than targets, and the Bill strongly achieves that.
	It is vital to tackle landfill. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that we are the country in Europe that commits by far the largest amount of our domestic waste to landfill. We are running out of holes—not only in Bedfordshire, but in the country as a whole. Methane escapes from landfill in a form that is 21 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. It is, above all, a lazy way in which to dispose of waste. It buries millions of tonnes of material that could be used or recycled. It is absolutely right that it is right at the bottom of the waste hierarchy.
	The mechanism in the Bill essentially does two things. It caps the total amount of waste going to landfill and provides a mechanism whereby it can be reduced in line with targets. It sets up a trading scheme so that local authorities that have exceeded their targets can earn income by trading permits with local authorities that have not reached their targets. As we have heard, there are mechanisms that allow local authorities to plan ahead by banking their credits or permits. Altogether, that creates a mechanism to track and to achieve targets that has real bite.
	I have two questions about the effect of that mechanism. In order to answer those questions, the Bill, important though it is, must be accompanied by other measures, possibly in a legislative form. The first question relates to the relationship between waste collection authorities—district councils—and waste disposal authorities: counties, unitary councils, metropolitan borough councils or consortiums of various authorities. Mets and unitaries are both collection and disposal authorities. At present, waste disposal authorities are required to dispose of whatever waste collection authorities give them for that purpose. There is no clear mechanism that requires waste to be supplied in a form that enables waste disposal authorities to manage it in a way that facilitates diversion from landfill, although many better waste collection authorities already do that.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to a partial mechanism to resolve that issue in the Bill. I must admit that I tend towards the option suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—that waste collection and waste disposal authorities should move together. Nevertheless, there are mechanisms that can substantially resolve the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is not in her place, addressed that in her private Member's Bill, which was recently given an unopposed Second Reading. The Bill requires waste collection authorities to provide waste in a suitable form. I hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind through Committee.
	My second question is more fundamental. It relates to the overall effect of the mechanism in the Bill on the actions of local authorities and the extent to which the outcome of those actions will bring about the required result. There is, of course, the initial problem of the quantum of the mechanism—that is, the extent to which the trading mechanism will secure the overall shape of the amount of waste that goes to landfill in the intended way. The problem, of course, is exacerbated by the annual increase in waste arising. Hon. Members have already mentioned that it is increasing by 3 per cent. per annum. The effect is that although the percentage of waste going into landfill is reducing, the total amount of waste going into landfill continues to increase.
	The mechanism assumes that local authorities act rationally—that they take positive actions to avert penalties that might arise from exceeding their targets, or, in the longer term, cause them to have to go into the market for permits to mitigate their position. A perverse incentive exists already for local authorities in the structure of the landfill levy. Every time that the gate price for landfill increases, local authorities pay more, which comes out of the environmental, protective and cultural services budget, which, in this instance, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) mentioned, is allocated within the overall budget for waste disposal. Of course, that is the same budget that funds revenue measures to divert waste from landfill. Therefore, the more that is charged, the less likely, in theory, that local authorities will be able to provide the revenue support to set up the mechanisms for waste diversion.
	I was pleased that, in the pre-Budget statement, the Treasury announced a new method of dealing with the landfill tax. A large part of the tax forgone will be put into precisely those measures of diversion—large waste management diversion, reuse and recycling projects—which partly overcome the perverse incentive. The mechanism does not, however, provide a clear way of dealing with market imbalance within local authorities. In that situation, acting rationally, more local authorities are chasing permits than are supplying them. The assumed corrective is that the cost of doing that, or the penalties involved in non-compliance, will make local authorities act. That is by no means certain, however, because without the capital finance available to invest, a relatively long-term revenue hit may be an acceptable way of dealing with the situation.
	There is another way of dealing with the situation, which is to secure capital means through diverting waste from landfill that does not cost capital to the local authority. The revenue hit can be taken and the waste diverted at the same time. That is the PFI route: entering into a deal with a private company to build the waste management plant. The problem, however, is that deals involving digestion, waste diversion through sorting or arrangements involving creating markets for recycled materials are complex, incremental and provide uncertain returns for the private companies involved. Acting as a rational authority, to tackle the problem with certainty and to know that a guaranteed impact will made over a period—for example, to hit the targets set a number of years in advance by the Department under the Bill—something far more certain will be needed. That, of course, is incineration.
	I do not decry incineration because it poisons the atmosphere. Modern incineration plants, by and large, do not do so. There is, of course, resistance to their siting by local residents, often understandably, but they are a relatively clean method of waste disposal, if we discount for a moment the increase in CO2 emissions arising from widespread waste burning. Nor do I claim that incineration has no place in the waste hierarchy: it does, and there are items of waste for which the best outcome is incineration.
	My concern is different, and it follows from the logic that I have just set out. Those who decide to go for incineration will want to get the most incineration for their money. They will therefore contract for the largest incineration plant that they can get. A 400,000 tonne plant, for example, is only three times as costly as a 100,000 tonne plant. We can see the effect of that on the development of incineration plants already commissioned or agreed. On 7 November, I asked the Department about incineration plants already under way. On the basis of the written replies to my questions, 11 of the 14 plants listed are over 100,000 tonnes and six are over 200,000 tonnes. It will be essential to attract the investment of a private company to build and run a larger incinerator, as that is the only way to make the impact required with the money available. The company will want to get a return on its investment.
	For example, a company would not want to start running a large incinerator that was agreed with a local authority only to find eight years down the line that policy had changed and it was stuck with a huge redundant plant. It would want to strike a long-term deal over 25 or 30 years. Part of the deal would involve knowing that it would have feedstock for the incinerator because an incinerator without waste to incinerate is not much good. The company will, therefore, strike a deal for a guaranteed waste stream, which is the same waste stream that a local authority is supposed to be diverting to recycling.
	The Department of Trade and Industry has made it easier to manage the waste stream into incinerators by exempting the putrescible element from the climate change levy, which means that energy produced from incinerated waste is more competitive. That means that incinerators become less viable generators of heat and power if they receive less recyclable and compostable waste. If local authorities are engaged in such a process, they will logically reach a point when their success at diverting waste and dealing with putrescibles starves large incinerators of their feedstock. They would then incur penalties as a result of their contracts which could be in excess of the penalties that they would have incurred by not meeting their landfill targets in the first place.
	I imagine that the response to that line of logic is that it is precisely that: a line of logic with no salience in the real world—the sort of stuff that a former academic might come out with. I decided to test the logic empirically. I asked two parliamentary questions in response to which the Department set out several developments that demonstrate the preference for large incinerators on long contracts. The answers also revealed explicitly that the Department does not know what local authorities are planning for the future. However, it is generally assumed that a relatively small percentage of domestic waste is disposed of using incineration and that that will continue in the future. I wondered how viable that assumption was so I wrote to all waste management authorities to ask their medium and long-term plans for waste management. The results were a little unsettling, to say the least. I have not entirely completed the work, and I am indebted to Hratche Koundarjian for his assistance in collating the results obtained from the 130 councils that provided substantive replies.
	Of those councils, 45—35 per cent.—are contracted to private incinerator firms individually or as part of a consortium. Thirty-six councils, which is 28 per cent., could start using incinerators by 2018, while only 49 councils have no plans to use incineration. Nineteen of the 36 councils considering incineration have relatively short-term plans, 12 have medium-term plans and five have long-term plans. The overall cumulative trend shows that 45 out of 130 councils are involved in incineration, which will become 64 by 2008, 76 by 2013 and 81 by 2018. Incineration will play far from a small role because local authorities may well make rational choices to make a substantial amount of incineration a key element of their waste disposal policy.

David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case and I have my own fears about any repercussions that may ensue. Does he agree that there are two further implications? First, owing to the capacity of incinerators that will be built, they will not be local solutions, but sub-regional and perhaps even regional solutions. Secondly, incineration is almost certainly predicated because of the centralisation of urban solutions. We could almost drive away small-scale rural responses because the easy solution to the problem will be to send waste to the next-door city or an alternative for incineration.

Alan Whitehead: Yes, indeed—my hon. Friend makes an important point. In my work I tried to look at the trend in decision making on incineration, and did not take into account, for example, the way in which long-distance transport may be involved or the way in which the logic of large-scale incineration drives out what should be part of the hierarchy—small-scale incineration in localities where appropriate.
	Notwithstanding those effects, my figures suggest that the rational choice effect that I set out is in fact taking place. In the absence of other developments, a large number of large incinerators may well come on stream in the UK, in most instances providing heat and power, over the next 15 years unless measures over and above the very welcome and important mechanisms in the Bill are introduced. That will mean that the country may well jump out of the frying pan of landfill into the fire, literally, of incineration as the major method by which we dispose of our waste. What is more, in many instances we may be locked into that method of doing things for 25 years or more, most notably at the expense of the measures which really set us free—waste minimisation, reuse, recycling and composting. I fully support the Bill, but I wonder whether the alternative to landfill of large incineration plants in use over a long period is a good idea.

Peter Luff: This has been a thoughtful debate, with interesting speeches from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Mid-Worcestershire wants to pay particular tribute to Mid-Bedfordshire, as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was an impressive performance. His resignation from the Front Bench is a loss not just for my party but, on this issue, to the whole House, as he has considerable expertise. We are grateful for his contribution to the debate, notwithstanding his resignation. I was particularly interested in what he said about foot and mouth disease, and hope that the Minister, in the short time he will probably have for his winding-up speech, will address that important point.
	My interest in the issue derives largely from two constituency considerations. First, I have two landfill sites in my constituency. One is a conventional hole in the ground, as referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, at Hartlebury. The other is not a hole in the ground but a landrise site. A mountain of waste is being built between Wyre Piddle—one can see it clearly from the new bypass—and Throckmorton, the site of a proposed asylum centre, which, I am glad to say, has now been dropped. A huge mountain of waste rises in a bizarre and eerie spectacle with seagulls wheeling overhead. An average of 200 lorry-loads of waste from large areas of Worcestershire and Herefordshire are taken there every day, and that is on top of the private cars that go there to use the private recycling and waste facilities.
	The site still has 18 to 20 years of life, so it should see out my time as Member of Parliament. Sadly, our diversion targets in Worcestershire will probably not be met because we have lost the incinerator that we hoped to have in the north of the county. I do not want to get into arguments about whether it was right or wrong to put that incinerator in that particular location, but I would tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—I hope that he will read the record when he returns—that he need not be quite so pessimistic about the threat of incineration. In the public inquiry, the inspector gave as a reason for rejecting a planning application "perceptions of health risk". I find that an extraordinary and bizarre decision by a planning inspector. However, if an inspector can say that perceptions of health risk are a good enough reason to frustrate a development, many others can use that argument too. Personally, I find that regrettable because incineration is an important part of a comprehensive solution to waste management, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said.
	In common with virtually everyone who has spoken, certainly from the Opposition and, to an extent, from the Government too, I regret that the Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to the problems of waste management. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we are considering these issues in isolation. Departments do not get many opportunities to introduce legislation—there is always a fight for slots in the legislative timetable—and it is a shame that this important Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to the problems of waste management. The long title says that the Bill makes
	"provision about waste and . . . the trading of emissions".
	It does not—it makes provision about biodegradable municipal waste, and only partly deals with that problem. It is therefore a shame that the Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to waste management.
	Targets are very easy to set, but more difficult to meet, as the Chancellor discovered in his public service agreements with various Departments. Those in the Bill are, by any standard, ambitious, so we will have to see whether its objectives can be achieved in the medium to long term.
	In my constituency, we have recently made considerable progress, in general, in recycling, after what was, to be honest, a period of lethargy. We have been too slow to move, and I have always contrasted my household's enforced habits on recycling with the habits that we adopt when we go to the United States of America on a house swap. There, the biodegradable municipal waste goes down the sink disposal unit; however, there are separate bags for tins, plastics and papers—it is a really comprehensive solution. It was interesting to note how a family that does not recycle everything at home—it is easy enough to recycle our papers and glass at home—easily fitted into the model of full recycling, when presented with the easy opportunities provided by the local authority in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
	However, progress is being made, and it needs to be made. Worcestershire county council's website says:
	"Last year Worcestershire and Herefordshire threw away over 350,000 tonnes of rubbish. That's enough to fill 4,800 double decker buses every day. Most of this waste went to landfill."
	Another, more bizarre comparison is that that same waste
	"would fill 42,000 refuse vehicles which would stretch from Worcester to Huddersfield."
	That shows the scale of the problem that the Bill seeks to address.
	I am glad that the bids of all the local authorities in the county were successful under the waste minimisation and recycling fund, and I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for that. As a result, all the district councils are now rolling out their recycling targets. Wychavon district council and Worcester city council, both of which are Conservative controlled, are in the vanguard, I am glad to say. Wychavon's scheme—a twin-bag approach, involving vans that can take the bags and the ordinary household waste—will be rolled out by the end of April to 94 per cent. of households. That will make a big difference in terms of recycling. All that waste will go to the landfill site at Hill and Moor, where there is a new recycling facility. That constitutes great progress, and all of this is very good news.
	However, the issue on which I want to focus—there are many things that I wanted to say about this Bill, but time is pressing and other Members wish to speak—is a worrying aspect of the Government's approach to landfill issues, which has been discussed on several occasions by Members, including by the hon. Member for Lewes. He said something with which I both profoundly agree and profoundly disagree. He spoke eloquently, and rightly, about the impact of fly tipping on the British countryside, and the problems that it poses for the agricultural community in particular. He proceeded to argue for a sharp increase in landfill tax rates, but until we have thought of a way to deal with the fly tipping menace, it would be premature to increase landfill tax, even though there may well be a strong environmental case for doing so.
	At the moment, the landfill tax rate is £14 per tonne. This year, it will rise to £15 per tonne, and a subsequent £3 per year escalator is envisaged, with an eventual target of £35 per tonne. This rapid rise in landfill tax will further increase the number of landfill tax criminals. They are creatures of the Government—they are the monsters of this tax, which the Government have created—and I have them in my constituency. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but I will tell him what is going on in my constituency, and then he will understand the problem. Ann Gartlan and John Bruce are the names—they do have names—of the people concerned. She has been fined repeatedly in the courts, and he has just been released after completing half of a prison sentence for activities related to the illegal tipping of waste.
	The enforcement effort required to control the company in question—it has adopted various guises, of which Ivory Plant Hire was the most notorious—has been extraordinary. It has involved a huge amount of effort on the part of the Environment Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate, the traffic commissioners, the local constabulary, the district council and the county council. We thought that we had won. Suddenly, the courts started to impose decent fines, and one of the people in question was sent to prison; but no, it has all begun again.
	I shall read from a letter written to the county council by Adrian Hardman, a county councillor for Crabbe Yard, in Wadborough, which lies exactly on the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer). The letter states:
	"As you know we have been fighting a war with various criminal organisations that are masquerading as legitimate firms, dealing in waste, which they either tip or crush illegally in my division with no care or concern for the community. Since the ringleader was sent to prison, the problem has not gone away but declined, but is now to quote her letter"—
	a letter from a Wychavon district council officer who is dealing with this matter—
	"'as bad as it was in 2000'".
	He goes on:
	"We must take a much more robust attitude to this problem, reminding ourselves that these people are not interested in the law, and adopting the position that it should be up to them to prove that they are within the law by contesting our enforcement notices."
	The county council does not view the problem as a waste matter. The council thinks that a building material is being recycled. It must be joking.
	I have sympathy for the county council. So much effort has gone into controlling the firm in its various guises over so many years, but as Adrian Hardman writes:
	"We must do everything to stop these people, whose sole aim is to profit from landfill tax. We will need a much firmer position for 2005/6 when the Government is aiming to raise it by £3 a ton, which will make the trade even more lucrative."
	The issue is exceptionally serious.

Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. I have known about the character he mentioned for many years at different sites. Such people are prepared to pop in and out of prison every year or so as the price that they are prepared to pay for the vast profits that they are making on the back of the tax. My hon. Friend is right. The legislation must be enforced.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a shared problem, but I do not believe that we are unique in the country in facing it. Such businesses exist entirely because of the landfill tax. That is what makes them viable. They can undercut legitimate operators and offer lower rates for the disposal of waste, which they then tip in the most irresponsible way.
	About two years ago, there was an impressive police operation, together with the other agencies, about which I could bore the House at great length, but it did not have the required effect. John Bruce is out of prison. I quote from a letter from Wychavon district council's legal officer, Clare Flanagan, who states:
	"Although I am aware that Ann Gartlan is on site"—
	that is the one who gets the regular fines—
	"on a daily basis and that John Bruce is still probably involved in the activities at the yard, neither of them has any connection with the owner Company, UK Plant & Haulage (Management) Limited. I cannot address them in this matter but must deal with the legal entity that is the owner, through its officers, Mr Wood Company Secretary and the Director."
	The failure of the Government to adopt a proper comprehensive approach to waste management has had many undesirable consequences, which other hon. Members have set out in their speeches. The consequence that I described is intolerable for my constituents, and the increase in landfill tax will make matters worse still. Will the Government please consider urgently a more comprehensive approach, at least to enforcement issues? A huge burden is being placed on local authorities and the constabulary in my constituency, and it is created by the landfill tax. They have to pay the price of cleaning up the mess.
	I assure the Minister that this is not a cheap party point; it is a serious plea. There is a real problem. I wish the Bill would also deal with the enforcement of measures to tackle fly tipping and other such issues. Then we could give it an unreserved welcome, instead of merely a qualified welcome.

David Drew: I am delighted to speak in the Second Reading debate, and I shall do so briefly, so that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) can also speak briefly. The problems described by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) are replicated in all our constituencies. There are people everywhere who abuse the system for disposing of their waste and misuse their land. However, I would add a rider to that. In a previous incarnation the hon. Gentleman chaired the Agriculture Committee, to which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is the successor. We are taking evidence on waste. It was interesting that yesterday the Environmental Services Association emphasised how vital it was that the landfill tax was increased dramatically so that we become serious not just in our language, but in our intentions and actions with respect to waste. There is a debate to be had, although there are not necessarily easy answers.
	I have just returned from Denmark. I shall not rehearse what I said on Friday in the Second Reading debate on the excellent Bill on municipal waste recycling, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). In Denmark we learned how people respond to both the carrot and the stick. The authorities there are not afraid to use fierce regulation, along with fiscal measures, to provide penalties as well as incentives. People there also respond very well to exhortation. It is a very different country, in terms of how people respond to what they see as their environmental responsibilities. So this can be done, and I hope that the Bill represents one small measure that will help to see it through.
	I would like to make three quick points. The first is the one that concerns me most, although I am sure that it will become manifest in Committee where those concerns might be diluted, if not completely washed away. It relates to the transparency of what we are asking individual householders to do in relation to what the Bill offers. I shall make a point here that is probably a little more detailed than one might expect on Second Reading. I hope that when the Bill is in Committee—if I am on the Committee—we can get someone to explain clause 3, which covers "Non-target years: default rules". I do not understand the formula that has been used. It looks as though the person who came up with the latest local government funding settlement formula has been on a day trip to my right hon. Friend's Department.
	Such is the legacy of the way in which those formulae were derived that we are reminded of the old saying that there are only three people who can understand local government funding: one is mad, one is bad, and the other is regularly on tap to the Minister, while the rest of us never get to see and talk to him. I just hope that we can get some clarification on this matter. The whole point of the Bill is that we have to change people's attitudes, and if it is seen to be too arcane or as something esoteric with which only parliamentarians will get involved, it will, unfortunately, be lost. It is an important Bill that could actually be seen to be moving things along.
	My second point relates whether these measures are opening the door for incineration. I do not want to say much more than to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on his particularly lucid explanation of the danger of giving a certain signal to people but ending up with them responding in the wrong way, out of sheer necessity, to deal with the target setting. We are all in favour of imposing better standards of behaviour, initially on local authorities but, through them, on the public. Unless we are clear, however, about how we are going to see that through, the danger is that people will look for the easy option. I am afraid that incineration is the easy option, as was landfill. For most people, if something is out of sight, it is not their problem. Unfortunately, it is a problem for those who have to live near the sites, and we all know that that is not a good way for the environment to operate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test also mentioned variable charging, and putting the responsibility on the householder to see the waste, weigh it and add up the cost. That would not be easy. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had the same responses as I have, following the council tax bills going out this week. This is not a party political point; in the main, council tax bills have gone up quite steeply this year, and there are all sorts of reasons for that. If we are going to tackle these problems seriously, I would argue that we need to disaggregate waste from these calculations. It is one of the most important functions carried out by local government, but often one of the most underrated, and we need to bring home its importance to people.

Norman Baker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point about the weighing of waste. That might encourage more glass recycling, but what would he do to encourage the recycling of plastic?

David Drew: We have had this debate already, and I do not want to detain the House further. I want to give the hon. Member for Leominster a chance to speak. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) can read what was said in last Friday's debate. It is important, however, that we look at recycling and at ways of putting it in place at convenient centres.
	My last point relates to how we can ensure that the supply and demand for emissions trading operates at a level that will provide more than just a short-term solution. It really needs to be able to operate over the long term. I can imagine some authorities being keen to supply trading certificates while others will constantly demand them. That would not be good for the environment. I am a great believer in decentralised decision making and placing the responsibility on the people, because only when they see things happening at local level will they respond in the way that we want.
	I hope that we shall be able to give the Bill detailed consideration later, but, notwithstanding my reservations, I think it is a good Bill. I will support it in the hope that it will set the standards that we should be observing.

Bill Wiggin: I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for speaking briefly. I shall try to do the same. I too spoke about this important subject on Friday, and I am one of those who signed early-day motion 333A.
	In general I support the theme of the Bill, and welcome the progress towards greater environmental sustainability, a reduction in the amount of waste dumped in this country, and the promotion of better environmental management and practices. In its report of April 2002, the World Economic Forum branded the United Kingdom one of the dirtiest countries in the world. After six years of Labour government, the UK is ranked 98th in the list of 142 countries on the 2002 environmental sustainability index. The Secretary of State herself has admitted that each person in the UK produces about seven times his or her own weight in waste every year. We produce more waste per head than most other EU nations, and recycle less. Municipal waste is increasing at a rate of between 3 and 4 per cent. per annum, and the volume of waste could be double the 1995 level by 2020 if the trend continues.
	I welcome moves to reduce the amount of municipal waste, and to help the UK clean up its act, but I feel that the Government have not addressed a number of issues adequately. I will be brief, so that the Minister will have a chance to comment on them.
	The Local Government Association has explicitly stated that if local authorities fail to meet the new landfill waste targets in the Bill and are penalised financially as a consequence, that may only make the situation worse. It could result in a self-perpetuating vicious circle, whereby local authorities suffering the financial burden of fines and other penalties will find it even harder to meet their prescribed targets. Have the Government taken that into account? How do they intend to reconcile an apparent contradiction with the Bill's overall purpose? According to the DEFRA-commissioned review of the UK landfill tax, published last October, 25 per cent. of local authorities are likely to miss their statutory recycling targets in 2005–06.
	The move away from a traditional reliance on landfill cannot be achieved overnight, and the introduction of a system of penalties will make it more difficult for waste disposal authorities to comply with landfill targets by diverting funds from the task of addressing the real challenges of providing alternatives to landfill. For the sake of local authorities, the Government must bear at least some responsibility for the Bill's implications. They must, for example, play their part in changing public attitudes to household waste in order to achieve significantly higher rates of recycling and composting, and encourage greater public understanding of the need to build new waste treatment plants.
	There is also the possibility that, in trying to move away from landfill, and fearing a failure to meet targets and hence a penalty, local authorities will move to a greater use of incinerators. The amount of municipal waste incinerated without some form of energy recovery rose from 10,000 tonnes in 1999–2000 to 20,000 in 2000–01. We are all aware of the danger that, when local authorities introduce schemes for recycling and reuse of rubbish, they will be forced to use incineration exclusively. Friends of the Earth, for instance, fears that incineration rather than recycling or composting will become the norm. What do the Government plan to do to ensure that authorities do not move too far towards incineration? That is particularly important when they are not recovering energy.
	There is also concern about the possibility that the UK and EU emissions trading schemes will not be compatible. Whereas the UK scheme concerns only industry, the EU approach specifically includes power generation.
	The UK scheme is voluntary and awards allowances by auction, but the EU system is mandatory and issues allowances for free, according to past emissions.
	The other great shame is that the Bill concentrates on target setting, one of the Government's peculiar propensities, instead of addressing the underlying problem, which is the amount of waste generated in the first place. The Minister will be aware of the waste hierarchy, but where are the measures to reduce waste production in the first place and then to encourage the reuse, recycling and composting of waste? Where is the pressure to recover energy from waste? Apart from the penalties related to emissions trading, the Bill is predominantly about landfill.
	It is of concern that the Bill does not envisage a more comprehensive approach to the problem of waste, addressing merely the issue of biodegradable waste, but failing to focus on issues such as plastics, the ever-increasing fridge mountain—to which the Minister will be especially sensitive—or indeed of old and worn-out cars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, any green reward/penalty scheme should allow for the volume and not just the weight of waste, so that it targets lighter waste such as plastic bags, and should have waste minimisation as its ultimate objective.
	Another issue that seems to have been largely overlooked is fly tipping. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) whose constituency borders mine, and we share concerns about it. It is an evil and unsavoury practice that is likely to increase as the landfill tax rises. He expressed those concerns well.
	My final concern is the potentially damaging effects that the increase in the landfill tax will have on the British manufacturing sector. The CBI, for example, has said:
	"We are opposed to a substantial increase in the landfill tax on the grounds that it's imposing another substantial cost on businesses and as it currently stands, it doesn't appear to be achieving the desired objective. The landfill tax provides some incentive for waste and resource minimisation but will never on its own provide the appropriate signals for industrial and domestic users to change their behaviour."
	That was backed up by the Engineering Employers Federation, which has cautioned the Government about raising the landfill tax and suggested that if it doubled, small firms could face an increase of between £1,000 and £7,000 tax a year, while larger companies could pay up to £200,000 more a year.
	Along with other trade bodies representing 10,000 employers, the EEF warned against adding to manufacturing costs at a time when profitability is already at its lowest level for nearly 20 years. The EEF has said:
	"If we continue to make the UK a less welcoming environment for manufacturing companies, then business will simply vote with its feet and the movement abroad of our manufacturing base will accelerate."
	The bottom line is that, while it is undoubtedly imperative to consider ways to address the growing problem of waste, that must not mean that environmental issues should be used as an excuse for the Government simply to raise taxes. Although I broadly welcome the Bill, we must be careful in its implementation.

Michael Meacher: With the permission of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the points that have been raised. We have had a thoughtful debate from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, with the exception of the last contributor—the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—who simply cannot resist making shallow political points, which is a pity. However, his contribution did not undermine the general tenor of the debate, which was of a high standard.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for a thoughtful and fair speech. I heard what he said about agreeing with the general purpose and contents of the Bill and I look forward to working with him in Committee. Several hon. Members mentioned the possibility that the scheme in the Bill was too limited or isolated as a part of the general waste management strategy. However, the Government introduced the waste strategy in 2000, and the strategy unit report, "Waste Not, Want Not" has also been produced, to which we shall reply shortly. The scheme is not isolated. The Bill introduces some key legislative requirements necessary to fill out those parts of the waste strategy that do not have legislative cover.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised a number of points, and I shall try to deal with them. He asked about the quantity of emissions saved by the emissions trading scheme. The 34 direct participants in the UK emissions trading scheme have committed themselves to achieving reductions of 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That is a significant total. It equates to approximately 5 per cent. of the UK's emission reductions up to 2010. The scheme is therefore significant and important.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the baselines had been drawn correctly, so as not to allow some companies to take advantage through double counting. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was also interested in the matter. The emission reductions in the UK emissions trading scheme are not covered by any other regulations—that is, a company is not allowed to include emission reductions that result from meeting targets set in other regulations. In addition, giving the scheme's direct participants—of which British Airways is a good example—absolute targets means that their production could decrease. However, all businesses want growth: if their production increases, as is their aim, their absolute target becomes tougher. That is sufficient protection.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked about the lack of fit between the UK and EU schemes. That is a fair point, and the matter has caused the Government a lot of difficulty. Our scheme is voluntary: we thought it right to have flexibility in the early stages, to see how the scheme worked. In its wisdom, the EU has decided to have a mandatory scheme.
	The current UK emissions trading scheme will finish at the end of 2006. The proposals in the Bill are designed to go beyond that date, but I am glad to say that we have managed to secure various provisions in the EU scheme. They include arrangements for opting out and opting in to the scheme, which will allow us to manage the transition in a way that we consider broadly acceptable.
	The transition period is important to us. Our main aim is to ensure that the reductions of 4.4 million tonnes in carbon emissions under our UK scheme are achieved. We also want to minimise disruption to participants in our scheme.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about coal mine methane, a topic raised too by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). As I said, we of course recognise the benefits of capturing coal mine methane. We have secured climate change agreement for the industry, in terms of access to the emissions trading scheme, but I must make it clear that we are currently awaiting EU state aid approval.
	With regard to entry to the emissions trading scheme, I repeat that there is uncertainty about what UK coal mine methane emissions actually are. That is the problem that the research that we have commissioned is designed to resolve. As a result, coal mine methane is not in the UK inventory.
	The hon. Gentleman asked two other questions. The first had to do with passing penalties from the disposal authority to the collection authority. That is a fair point, and I can tell him that we are not attracted to legislating for that, although we could. We do not want to encourage the apportionment of blame, and we do not want that sort of culture to develop between authorities that must work together. We believe that the power of direction will encourage authorities to work together, and that it represents a better solution.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about penalties being passed between the four component parts of the UK. The UK as a whole is liable for the EU fine, but if that is due to a failure by a specific Administration, it will have to pay. That will be agreed through concordats between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked whether county councils were correct in their approach to incineration and recycling targets. They are, in the sense that incineration is not recycling and does not count towards the recycling targets. That is obvious. But incineration is a form of recovery and would be part of their non-statutory recovery targets. He also asked about the compatibility of the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. I tried to answer that. We believe that the opt-out and the opt-in system means that, on both sides of the transition date of 2008, we can get compatibility with the mandatory EU scheme that is satisfactory to us.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman. Baker) raised a number of points, as is his wont. He and others referred to fly tipping, which the Government recognise is a serious problem. However, the idea that the landfill tax automatically makes that worse is wrong. There is nothing to stop anyone taking waste to a civil amenity site free of charge. One does not have to dump it in the countryside to escape paying the landfill tax.
	We have done some more positive things—

Peter Luff: rose—

Michael Meacher: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, who raised a different point. The strategy unit has recommended more rigorous prosecution of fly tipping and we are considering that seriously. I attended a meeting of the fly tipping forum, which is chaired by a senior official of the Environment Agency, and I looked at a series of ideas, many of which I am keen to pursue, including a big increase in penalties, which I think is critical.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I am unwilling to. The hon. Gentleman had a lot of time and I am trying to answer several of his points, but I must try to cover everyone else.
	The Government White Paper on antisocial behaviour, issued on 11 March, included proposals to give local authorities a strategic role for dealing with fly tipping and ensuring that they have sufficient powers to do so. One objection has been that it is all left to the Environment Agency, which does not have the resources and manpower to do it. Local authorities will now have equivalent powers.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the derogation. We have a derogation at each of the trip points: 2006 to 2010, 2009 to 2013 and 2016 to 2020. My view is that we should try to meet the first of those dates and not use the derogation unless we have to. It is not infra dig to have to use the derogation, although there is no question but that, for 2006, we will have to use it. It is too early to say about 2016. I would hope that we will make sufficient progress and that we will not need to use it.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to allowances for sale, and thought that so many local authorities would be off-track that the cost of licences would be high, and that, therefore, local authorities would prefer not to comply because it would be less expensive. First, I am chasing local authorities to make jolly sure that the number who do not comply is as small as conceivably possible. I wrote to 142 authorities last August and I am now pursuing those that we believe are not on-track. The real answer to his point is that the penalties will be set at a level that makes non-compliance the least attractive option.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the export of waste to the Republic of Ireland, but it is allowances that are traded, not the waste itself. Under the Basle convention, waste cannot be exported except for recovery, but it will be for the Northern Ireland Administration to decide the details of their scheme.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the waste hierarchy and he referred to clause 17(3). All the options that he quoted are, indeed, options, but they are not stated in terms of the hierarchy. I assure him that the waste hierarchy prevails. He asked whether incineration would have preference over recycling, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) also drew a great deal of attention to that issue. We believe that we have given sufficient incentivisation to recycling to make the scenario that was outlined unlikely. I do not now have the time to argue the point, but I am sure that we will return to it in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) asked what would happen if a disposal authority received a penalty as a result of a fault committed by the collection authority. The point behind the power of direction is that a waste collection authority cannot prevent the targets from being met. As I have said, passing down penalties simply creates a blame culture and removes money from the system.
	My hon. Friend also asked about penalties for authorities that have to continue to send material to landfill under a 25-year contract. He said that such penalties were unfair. The landfill directive was put in place in 1999, and it was the subject of negotiation for many years before that. The need to reduce the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste has been known for a long time, so that casts doubt on the point about there being a need to guarantee a particular quantity of waste for landfill.
	My hon. Friend also asked about incentives. No one has drawn attention in the debate to the fact that the Government have increased the rate support grant in regard to waste management by £1.1 billion in the current spending review period and by a further £670 million in the next. We have provided a local authority waste minimisation and recycling fund of £140 million and increased by 60 per cent. the private finance initiative to £355 million. I do not think that local authorities can say that they are not adequately funded.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is no longer on the Opposition Front Bench, but he has not lost his critical edge. Among other things, he raised the issue of recycling and the landfill tax. The Government have certainly already agreed that any increase in landfill tax will be revenue-neutral and that it will be used to fund sustainable waste management programmes. We are currently discussing in government how that is best done, but we accept the principle.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about composting and animal diseases. There is no such thing as zero risk, but independent risk assessment shows that catering waste can safely be composted. The place for controls is in the animal by-products regulations and not in this Bill. We take his point that this is not the appropriate place to deal with the issue. Composting at 98° C—the provision is the result of an amendment made in the other place—does not simply produce compost, because everything is killed and not just the harmful pathogens. That is why we object to the provision.
	I have not had a chance to respond to all the points raised, but I will be glad to do so in correspondence. I look forward to working in Committee with those who have spoken in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]—
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29th April 2003.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the levying of fees and charges under regulations made under the Act.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

PEMBURY HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Archie Norman: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the impending possible closure of the haematology research unit at Pembury hospital in my constituency. It is not a research unit of which I was previously aware, and I understand that the Minister's office was not previously aware of it either. However, on examination, it is a remarkable research operation that has been running for some 17 years and is now threatened with closure because of a lack of financing, and I shall talk about the value for money that it offers.
	I am keen to raise the issue in the House not just because the unit's closure would be a tragedy for the country and the NHS, but because broader lessons must surely be learned from the possible loss of an outstanding facility and its dedicated staff. I ask to the Minister to address three questions. It may well not be possible to provide all the answers in the short time available this evening, but I seek an undertaking that he and his officials will consider the issue extremely seriously.
	First, what can be done, even at this very late stage, to save the unit, its staff and scientists who have done such good work in the past? Secondly, in the very unfortunate event that the unit cannot be saved—I appreciate that it is late in the day—what can be done to ensure that the very good research that has been done in the past can be transferred elsewhere and that the learning is not lost to the country and the NHS? Thirdly, will the Minister comment on the broader implications for the way in which we fund, through the NHS, such long-term research that is of value to the nation and, indeed, the rest of the world?
	Surely, if such research units are left to fund themselves year on year, hand to mouth, so that scientists and doctors have to go out cap in hand and spend a great deal of time that could otherwise be spent on clinical responsibilities simply because of the short-term nature of funding, it is no way to build up a long-term research and development capability in our medical sciences. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those issues.
	Dr. Colin Taylor, a consultant haematologist, originally founded the unit some 17 years ago to look at the reasons why some types of leukaemia were unresponsive to chemotherapy, and it has broadened its field research beyond that into other sorts of cancer. The unit has a long track record of research. Overall, it has had 50 papers on its work published in peer review journals and it has presented 90 abstracts at international conferences. The Minister will have a copy of those research documents, provided by my office, and it is a truly impressive list by any standards.
	The unit is of international repute and widely respected not just in this country, but in the United States and elsewhere. The type of research that was pioneered by that very small unit is now being taken up elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States, on a significant scale and, in some cases, a significant commercial scale. The unit is currently involved in international research work on leukaemia, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and bladder cancer, and the publications that I have referred to testify to that fact.
	In addition, the unit, as a result of its research, has started to develop a clinical service that is used by NHS hospitals throughout the country. That service performs approximately 300 to 400 chemotherapy sensitivity tests a year on both solid and haematological tumours. In other words, it provides a service that can test the tumours for their response to the right level of chemotherapy and mix of drugs to produce the best possible result. The service can not only save and preserve life, but can reduce enormously the side effects of cancer treatment, which, as we all know, is often extremely distressing to patients. It is an extremely valuable service.

John Stanley: My hon. Friend knows that my constituents benefit immensely, as do his and people much further afield, from this remarkable life-saving research facility. Does he agree that as such extensive use is made of it by NHS practitioners—oncologists, surgeons and physicians—that in itself presents a compelling reason why the NHS should ensure financially that it continues?

Archie Norman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is not just that the unit is providing a service, it is being used by other hospitals in the NHS in the treatment of cancer even though this unit is not funded by the NHS. It is in all respects a bargain for the NHS, both because of the form of its funding and because of the value of its service. The unit has helped a total of 4,000 patients over time with a number of different tumor types. The research has shown that by using the chemotherapy sensitivity testing technique on patients, for example in advanced ovarian cancer, the five-year survival rate can be increased from 12 to 24 per cent.—in other words, survival rates are doubled for those patients with that acute form of cancer.
	To pick up on my hon. Friend's point, it has been reported in a peer review journal by Professor Michael Drummond, who is the director of the centre for health economics at York university, that the potential cost saving to the NHS of using chemotherapy sensitivity testing in chronic leukaemia is £1,470 per patient per year on medication. The test enables the treatment to be specifically right for that patient. It ensures that the response is the most efficient one for that patient. If we assume that that is correct and is also right for other forms of testing that the unit undertakes, the saving per annum for 300 patients is some £450,000 a year. The unit costs less than that to fund. It is paying for itself without costing the NHS anything. It is an absolute bargain. If it closes, the consequential cost to the NHS will be greater and the suffering of patients will be greater. We will have patients who will suffer more and die earlier. That is the issue.
	It is easy to talk about research, facts, figures and funding, so let me put some colour on this. I have received many letters from people all over the country who have benefited, or whose relatives have benefited, from the work of the unit. We must remember that at the end of the day this is about patients who are suffering acutely from severe illness, often in advanced stages of distress. Sharon Howell, whose daughter Sarah died of leukaemia aged 18, said of the unit:
	"If it wasn't for their hard work Sarah wouldn't have had an extra two years of life."
	Today, a colleague working in the House rang up to say he was so glad that I was raising this issue because his daughter would not be alive today without the work of the Pembury research unit. It matters to people. None of the people who have benefited or the clinicians up and down the country will understand if we let the unit go without ensuring that we have done our best to save it, or, if we cannot save it, ensure that the work is continued and developed elsewhere.
	Dr. Jean Sergeant, the principal research scientist at the Pembury unit said:
	"It is sad that the work is finishing because what we are doing is helping patients. The only positive thing is that all the work of the unit has been published and is available for the benefit of the public to be used by other researchers. I just hope that the testing can be continued in other units for the continued benefit of cancer patients."
	I am not raising this issue in order to criticise anybody. In many ways, it was a tragedy that I did not become aware earlier of the work of the unit and its funding situation. Had I been aware, perhaps I, as the MP, could have done more to help it. It is not that the Minister has cut off funding to the unit, and it is not that any individual has decided to close it. Rather, the unit has had the misfortune of being the victim of its own success. Because it has been such good value over time, it has been funded hand to mouth by research grants that it has applied for and by voluntary contributions from foundations and charities. As a result, the unit has never established a long-term basis for its funding or its secure financial future. Dr. Colin Taylor has told me that one of the reasons why he has concluded that it will be very hard to continue is that he and his colleagues are spending too much of their time trying to raise money instead of concentrating on their research and clinical work. He and many of the staff are obviously distressed at the situation, but feel that, without secure long-term funding, they simply cannot continue.
	The costs of the unit are not great; I will give them in round numbers. The unit costs £150,000 to keep open for one year. Of that, £90,000 goes on salaries for scientists and staff, £20,000 goes on consumables, and £40,000 goes on equipment. In the scale of things, those are not substantial sums of money—although I know that there are many different claims on NHS resources. The unit receives rent-free accommodation from the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. That, substantially, is the contribution of the NHS to the unit's funding. It is obviously of a modest order. The unit has, in the past, received 60 per cent. of its funding from research grants and 40 per cent. from local charitable donations. Unfortunately, the unit's two most recent applications for research grants were unsuccessful. Obviously, I cannot evaluate those applications as I am not qualified to do so, but, as far as I can tell, they were unsuccessful not because they were of insufficient merit, but because there were other priorities. In one case, the funds required simply were not there.
	Quite apart from the loss to patients and the extra cost to the NHS, if the unit closes its current national and international collaborations—work on leukaemia, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and bladder cancer—will all be discontinued. The units with which the Pembury unit works, and doctors and scientists around the world, will be amazed if it closes. I understand that there are two other units in the country that undertake comparable work—one in Bath and one in Portsmouth. It is possible that at least some of the testing work can be transferred to those units. However, they, too, face comparable funding problems and are substantially funded by periodic research grants. The Minister may be able to address, or undertake to address, the question of what their financial future is likely to be.
	Just to survive, the unit needs £150,000 in funding. However, the issue is broader than that. It will be no good simply providing enough money for the next few months. We are talking about scientists—people who want to devote their career to this work and who believe profoundly and passionately in what they are doing. They need to be given the opportunity to develop their work in the knowledge that they have a reasonably secure future. They should not have to go round cap in hand. It is not just a question of research grants. There is an appetite for helping, and the local community will help. Even in the weeks since it became clear that the unit might close, some £20,000 has potentially been raised in the local community. A remarkable local campaigner, Mr. Simon Bender, has been very active in raising funds. I have no doubt that in Tunbridge Wells, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), a contribution will be made. The question for the Minister is this: is there any way, from Government or comparable resources, of providing a future for the unit?
	I do not want to miss this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of not only my right hon. Friend and myself but, I hope, the Government, to the staff, doctors and scientists who have been involved in the work of the unit over the years, especially Dr. Colin Taylor and Dr. Jean Sargent. All the staff work incredibly hard in fairly primitive conditions to keep the unit going. It will be a tragedy if the unit is closed and their work is lost.
	The unit is a bargain for the NHS and for the country. How could it have been allowed to continue without being put on a secure basis? What does that say about the way that the NHS funds long-term research and development projects? What does that say about the extent to which funding, especially for cancer research, actually reaches the front line?
	I do not want to tax the Minister's patience, but I should like to share with him remarks made by the Secretary of State for Health at the conference held by the all-party group on cancer on 5 November 2002. The right hon. Gentleman said:
	"When I became Secretary of State three years ago, I said that reducing the number of deaths from cancer and improving the care and treatment cancer patients receive was a personal priority for me."
	We can all applaud that sentiment. He continued:
	"I know sometimes there have been concerns about whether this extra funding"—
	the extra £570 million—
	"is all getting through to front-line cancer teams".
	We are asking only for a scintilla of small change from that budget to help units such as Pembury to continue. People working at units in the United States and elsewhere which collaborate with Pembury will be amazed to hear that it is closing for want of a few pennies. By the standard of US funding and the commercial value of the research that is being developed there, the amount is extremely small. If nothing else comes of this debate, I hope that we can create a secure base somewhere in this country for such research and the staff who want to work on it. They need continuity and development of the service that they provide for cancer patients throughout the country. If we can only do that, we shall have achieved something and there will be a lasting testimonial to the outstanding work of the doctors and staff at Pembury.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing the debate. The future of the haematology unit at Pembury hospital and its research is clearly of importance not only to him and his constituents, but to many people in the UK.
	This country has an outstanding record of scientific innovation. In health terms, that rests on mutual support among the NHS, our universities and the bodies that fund high quality research and development. As well as providing solid support for the national science effort, the NHS must support research and development that is relevant to its national priorities and responsive and accessible to the needs of those who use the NHS, as well as its staff and decision makers. We must take an integrated approach to securing the knowledge that we need if we are to tackle health inequalities and provide modern health and social care.
	It is estimated that more than £450 million is spent on cancer research in the UK every year. Cancer research funding is made up of several components, including the direct spend on research programmes, infrastructure, support services and laboratories. The first of these, direct support for research, is of most value for co-ordination and strategy setting. The largest proportion of the total expenditure is in the field of biological research, although research into aetiology and treatment is also well supported. The research is funded by approximately 250 charities, numerous Government bodies and the pharmaceutical industry. It is supported by the National Cancer Research Institute, a partnership between the major funding bodies that has the objective of accelerating progress in research in the UK for the benefit of patients.
	By 2004, a new cancer research network will be fully implemented. That will enhance the quality, speed and co-ordination of clinical research and ensure better integration with cancer care. More than 31 of the 34 cancer service networks are now receiving research funds for an integral national cancer research network. Phase 2 of the cancer services collaborative programme commenced in April 2001. The national programme focuses on prostate, breast, lung and ovarian cancers in all 34 cancer networks. There is a total of more than 600 projects, which have yielded in excess of 1,500 real improvements in cancer services for patients. That confirms a healthy picture of a varied and generally well-balanced cancer research base in the UK.
	I come now to the specific funding issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. The haematology research unit was set up in Pembury hospital in 1985. It is an independent research unit that carries out research into drug resistance before therapy in the field of chemosensitivity for bladder, breast, acute leukaemia and ovarian cancers, and it has some notable achievements to its credit. I am very happy to pay tribute to that work. Traditionally, it has taken samples from patients from a number of hospitals across south England, testing about 300 samples every year. More recently, its facility has been used some of London's teaching hospitals and more local centres such as the Ashford breast cancer centre.
	During its 17 or so years, the unit has had many papers published and the results have been used to help cancer sufferers all over the world. Historically, the unit has received its funding through various routes. Trusts pay for the testing services, but those funds are not sufficient to meet the large operational costs of the unit. Additional funding comes from the haematology research fund, which is supported by the host trust's general charitable trust fund, together with, as the hon. Gentleman said, a research grant from the Medical Research Council. The trust provided accommodation free of charge to the unit at the Pembury site.
	I recognise the efforts that have been made by the unit and local people to try to raise funds in support of the unit—they have done so very successfully for many years—but even their efforts have not been enough to secure the continued long-term operation of the unit. I understand and have every sympathy with the position that the unit now finds itself in.
	The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that it is rather late in the day to take action, and in a sense the position is clear. Funding decisions in the NHS now rest with primary care trusts. It is for PCTs, in conjunction with their strategic health authorities, to plan and develop services according to the needs of their local communities. Unfortunately, it is not appropriate for Ministers to get involved in those decisions. This is an independent research unit with charitable status. The NHS has supported it over many years by providing free rent and employment contracts for its staff. The NHS—specifically the West Kent and the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trusts—is involved in a number of clinical trials involving cancer patients. The Kent and Medway strategic health authority continues to encourage research and development across Kent through its research and development and other networks. But, again, it is for the local research and development network to make decisions on a research and development strategy to increase research opportunities in Kent.
	The hon. Gentleman, as he indicated, may ask, why do we not tell the Medical Research Council to continue funding the unit? The reason is that the MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe the detail of how individual research councils should distribute their resources between competing priorities.

Archie Norman: Does the Minister accept that it is clearly not for the primary care trust to fund a unit that provides research of a long-term nature that is of value to the whole country, not just the PCT area? I am sure that he will agree that it is not sensible to ask the PCT, which is already strapped for funds, to fund research of that kind. There must be another apparatus for doing that. Does he accept that the nature of the unit, as I said earlier, is to provide a service to the NHS that is of value today? It cannot be regarded as just a normal piece of research. No one is suggesting that the Government should tell research agencies to make grants, but this is an emergency. Something must be done or the resources will be lost forever.

David Lammy: If I may, I would like to move on to the nature of the research and what is going on across the country. Right across the country, in individual primary care trusts and strategic health authority areas, much work is going on in the locality that is of tremendous national benefit. It is right that such decisions are made in conjunction with the primary care trust and the strategic health authority.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, should the Pembury unit close, every effort should be made to ensure that the work that it undertakes should not be lost to the wider NHS. Two other established units, in Bath and Portsmouth, carry out similar research into chemosensitivity testing. I am advised by officials that discussions are about to take place to determine whether samples tested at Pembury can be managed at those sites. In addition, the Royal London hospital has confirmed that it is able to take on the work that the unit does specifically in the area of chemosensitivity testing for childhood leukaemia. As he will know, those tests form a crucial part of the unit's most recent work on relapsed leukaemia trials, on which other laboratories across the UK are also working.
	In addition, I understand that scientists from St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, have spent time with the unit in Pembury learning the techniques that it uses. As I have said, the unit at Pembury has historically taken samples from hospitals across the south of England. Although I can understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that this type of research may not continue at the haematology research unit in Pembury, I can assure him that discussions are under way to transfer the unit's testing of samples to other sites in the south of England, and that some specialist work will transfer to the Royal London. As I understand it, samples are sent through the post, so distance is not an issue as long as the samples are received within 24 hours.
	For the longer term, I understand that new types of research are being developed that could replace chemosensitivity in the future. Many labs throughout the UK are currently working on gene expression profiling. GEP is very similar to chemosensitivity, in that the labs take fresh samples of cancer cells from patients and profile them against different drugs. Eventually, it should be possible to match up about 30,000 different types of cancer genes with the most appropriate drug therapy.
	To turn back to the hon. Gentleman's area, a research and development network has been established in Kent and Medway, which brings together primary care, secondary care and universities to work on a research and development strategy to increase research opportunities. I understand that Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust is already taking part in several clinical trials involving cancer patients—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.